ArticleMalaria journal2021
Assessment of the accuracy of malaria microscopy in private health facilities in Entebbe Municipality, Uganda: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Malaria journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of malaria microscopy among laboratory professionals in Ethiopia: a systematic review.Malaria journal · 2026Pooled it
- Quality of inpatient test-and-treat malaria case-management in public and private hospitals in Kano State, Nigeria.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Screener Application in Screening for Malaria Parasites Among Blood Donors at the Korle-Bu Blood Bank, Ghana: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of tropical medicine · 2026Article
- Difference between Microscopic and PCR Examination Result for Malaria Diagnosis and Treatment Evaluation in Sumba Barat Daya, Indonesia.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough microscopy remains the gold standard for malaria diagnosis, little is known about its accuracy in the private health facilities in Uganda. This study evaluated the accuracy of malaria microscopy, and factors associated with inaccurate smear results at private health facilities in Entebbe Municipality, Uganda.
methodsBetween April and May 2018, all patients referred for a malaria smear in 16 private health facilities in Entebbe municipality were screened, and 321 patients were enrolled. A questionnaire was administered to collect demographic and clinical information, facility-based smear results were recorded from the participant's consultation notes, and a research slide was obtained for expert microscopy during exit interview. A health facility assessment was conducted, and information on experience in performing malaria microscopy was collected from all facility personnel reading smears and the data was linked to the participant's clinic visit.
resultsThe test positivity rate of malaria parasitaemia was 15.0% by expert microscopy. The sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value of the facility-based microscopy were high (95.8%, 90.1 and 99.2%, respectively). However; the positive predictive value (PPV) was low with 27/73 (63%) patients diagnosed with malaria not having the disease. Majority of the inaccurate results were from 2 of the 23 laboratory personnel reading the smears. The factors associated with inaccurate smear readings included being read by a technician; (1) who had less than 5 years' experience in reading malaria smears (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 9.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.06-89.5), p-value = 0.04), and (2) who was examining less than 5 smears a day (aOR = 38.8, 95% CI 9.65-156, p-value < 0.001).
conclusionsThe accuracy of malaria microscopy in this setting was high, although one third of the patients diagnosed with malaria did not have the disease. Majority of the errors in smear readings were made by two laboratory personnel, with the main factor associated with inaccurate smear results being low experience in malaria microscopy. In-service training may be sufficient to eliminate inaccurate smear results in this setting, and these private facilities would be ideal model facilities to improve the quality of malaria microscopy in Uganda especially in the public sector where accuracy is still poor.
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.