ArticleMalaria journal2018
Comparison of visual and automated Deki Reader interpretation of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in rural Tanzanian military health facilities.
Article in Malaria journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of malaria rapid diagnostic test kit performance in a high-transmission setting: a facility-based cross-sectional study in rural Ghana.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Situational analysis of malaria in Cabo Verde: From endemic control to elimination, history, cases data and challenges ahead.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Quality Control of Microscopic Diagnosis of Malaria in Healthcare Facilities and Submicroscopic Infections in Mossendjo, the Department of Niari, the Republic of the Congo.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis of Factors Affecting Neutralizing Antibody Production after COVID-19 Vaccination Using Newly Developed Rapid Point-of-Care Test.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Transforming Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Precision Public Health: Open Guidelines for Manufacturers and Users.JMIR biomedical engineering · 2022Article
- Vector control in China, from malaria endemic to elimination and challenges ahead.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2022Review
- Performance Evaluation of the BZ COVID-19 Neutralizing Antibody Test for the Culture-Free and Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests: Literary Review and Recommendation for a Quality Assurance, Quality Control Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests.Malaria journal · 2021Article
- Continuous quality monitoring in the field: an evaluation of the performance of the Fio Deki Reader™ for rapid HIV testing in South Africa.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough microscopy is a standard diagnostic tool for malaria and the gold standard, it is infrequently used because of unavailability of laboratory facilities and the absence of skilled readers in poor resource settings. Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) are currently used instead of or as an adjunct to microscopy. However, at very low parasitaemia (usually < 100 asexual parasites/µl), the test line on malaria rapid diagnostic tests can be faint and consequently hard to visualize and this may potentially affect the interpretation of the test results. Fio Corporation (Canada), developed an automated RDT reader named Deki Reader™ for automatic analysis and interpretation of rapid diagnostic tests. This study aimed to compare visual assessment and automated Deki Reader evaluations to interpret malaria rapid diagnostic tests against microscopy. Unlike in the previous studies where expert laboratory technicians interpreted the test results visually and operated the device, in this study low cadre health care workers who have not attended any formal professional training in laboratory sciences were employed.
methodsFinger prick blood from 1293 outpatients with fever was tested for malaria using RDT and Giemsa-stained microscopy for thick and thin blood smears. Blood samples for RDTs were processed according to manufacturers' instructions automated in the Deki Reader. Results of malaria diagnoses were compared between visual and the automated devise reading of RDT and microscopy.
resultsThe sensitivity of malaria rapid diagnostic test results interpreted by the Deki Reader was 94.1% and that of visual interpretation was 93.9%. The specificity of malaria rapid diagnostic test results was 71.8% and that of human interpretation was 72.0%. The positive predictive value of malaria RDT results by the Deki Reader and visual interpretation was 75.8 and 75.4%, respectively, while the negative predictive values were 92.8 and 92.4%, respectively. The accuracy of RDT as interpreted by DR and visually was 82.6 and 82.1%, respectively.
conclusionThere was no significant difference in performance of RDTs interpreted by either automated DR or visually by unskilled health workers. However, despite the similarities in performance parameters, the device has proven useful because it provides stepwise guidance on processing RDT, data transfer and reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.