ArticleThe Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association2022
Malaria rapid diagnostic tests for the case management of febrile children in Nigerian primary healthcare settings: a cross-sectional study.
Article in The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- High Burden of Asymptomatic Malaria Among Schoolchildren in Nigeria: Diagnosis Challenges andPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalaria has been identified as a significant public health burden, exhibiting a high risk of death and morbidity. In sub-Saharan Africa, most young children attending primary healthcare facilities are commonly diagnosed with malaria. Thus, introduction of malaria rapid diagnostic test (mRDT) kits and effective antimalarials has substantially improved the management of malaria cases. However, healthcare worker confidence and adherence to procedures dependent on malaria test results remain variable in high-burden settings due to lacking alternative point-of-care tests to diagnose other causes of fever. In this study, we compared the results of malaria screenings using mRDT and microscopy in febrile children presenting at a primary health facility.
methodsThis study was conducted at a primary health center in Owo, Ondo State, Nigeria. Children with fever were assessed for malaria by health staff and, where indicated, screened using Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein-2 mRDT kits. Blood samples were collected on slides for microscopy and in hematocrit tubes for hematocrit determination simultaneously, whereas the mRDT test was done by routine health staff. Children found positive for malaria via mRDT were diagnosed as uncomplicated malaria cases and treated as outpatients using artemether-lumefantrine. Blood slides were read independently by two trained microscopists blinded to the mRDT results. The parasite densities were defined as average counts by both microscopists. We then assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of mRDT for the diagnosis of malaria.
resultsWe compared the test results of 250 febrile children who are under 15 years old. The test positivity rates were 93.6% (234/250) and 97.2% (243/250) using microscopy and rapid RDTs, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of mRDT compared to microscopy were 100.0% and 43.8%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 96.3% (95% CI 93.1-98.3). The hematocrit value was <30% in 64% of the children.
conclusionAs per our findings, mRDTs have correctly detected infections in febrile children. Healthcare workers and caregivers should be encouraged to act in accordance with the test results by means of regular feedback on the quality of mRDTs in use in malaria case management.
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.