ArticleBMC research notes2020
Implementation of external quality assessment of microscopy for improved parasite detection and confirmatory diagnosis of malaria in Tanzanian Military health facilities.
Article in BMC research notes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGood quality microscopy is critical for accurate detection and confirmation of malaria parasite infections. Microscopy relies on the skills of technicians to prepare and read slides, high quality reagents, and a good program of internal and external quality control (EQA), which are lacking in most malaria endemic settings. This study was undertaken between January 2016 and December 2018 to pilot an EQA of microscopy for improved diagnosis of malaria and patient care in Tanzanian Military health facilities.
resultsOf all blood smears crosschecked (n = 4000) at baseline, only 38.5% were incorrectly diagnosed by laboratory staff with false positive and negative rates of 46.7% and 16.4%, respectively. During the implementation of EQA, false positive and negative results decreased due to increased quality index of slide preparation and reading through supportive supervision, and retraining of laboratory personnel. There was a gradual increase of quarterly and annual total quality index for all laboratories, from 60% in 2016 to 78% in 2017 and 90% in 2018. The mean proficiency testing performance scores also increased from 75% in 2016 to 82% in 2017 and to 90% in 2018. Poor blood smear preparation and staining contributed to high false positive and negative rates while EQA helped in improvement of diagnostics.
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.