ArticleTropical parasitology
Comparative evaluation of traditional and molecular diagnostic methods for malaria: An analysis of performance.
Article in Tropical parasitology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric MixedChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Malaria recrudescence after artemether-lumefantrine treatment in travellers- a hospital-based observational study and literature review.Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: As we edge closer to the eradication of malaria, several methods for detecting Materials and Methods: Our study compared four diagnostic techniques for malaria: PBS, quantitative buffy coat (QBC), RDT, and PCR. We used PCR as the benchmark standard and statistically assessed the performance of PBS, QBC, and RDT against PCR in detecting malaria. Adopting a prospective observational approach, we collected blood samples from 117 patients exhibiting the symptoms suggestive of malaria. Results: The findings from our study showed that PBS had a positivity rate of 93.4%, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.881-0.987, indicating reliable results for a similar population. The QBC assay demonstrated an elevated positivity rate of 96.7% with a solid 95% CI of 0.930-1.000. Although the RDT had a slightly lower rate of 92.4%, it still delivered dependable results, presenting a significant 95% CI of 0.868-0.980, ensuring a robust diagnostic performance compared to PCR. Conclusion: PCR is a reliable test when the identification of the specific species is inconclusive. Conversely, the commonly used PBS occasionally overlooks positive malaria cases due to the specialized skills needed for accurate reading. The cost-effective RDT is feasible for field operations without the need for expert knowledge. However, it fails to differentiate between old and new infections. Meanwhile, the QBC test, known for its sensitivity and speed, can be consistently employed for malaria diagnosis in a tertiary care settings.
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.