ArticleBMC research notes2024
Quality assessment of malaria microscopic diagnosis at the Aristide Le Dantec University Hospital of Dakar, Senegal, in 2020.
Article in BMC research notes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The reliability of malaria rapid diagnostic test kit for detecting P. falciparum PfHRP2 in dried blood spot samples preserved under different conditions and durations.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Malaria diagnosis challenges andPathogens and global health · 2024Article
- Circulation of Non-Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
39 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing WHO guidelines, microscopy is the gold standard for malaria diagnosis in endemic countries. The Parasitology-Mycology laboratory (LPM) is the National Reference Laboratory and is currently undergoing ISO 15189 accreditation. In this context, we assessed the performance of the laboratory by confirming the reliability and the accuracy of results obtained in accordance with the requirements of the ISO 15189 standards. This study aimed to verify the method of microscopic diagnosis of malaria at the LPM, in the Aristide Le Dantec hospital (HALD) in Dakar, Senegal.
methodsThis is a validation/verification study conducted from June to August 2020. Twenty (20) microscopic slides of thick/thin blood smear with known parasite densities (PD) selected from the Cheick Anta Diop University malaria slide bank in Dakar were used for this assessment. Six (6) were used to assess microscopists' ability to determine PD and fourteen (14) slides were used for detection (positive vs negative) and identification of parasites. Four (4) LPM-HALD microscopists read and recorded their results on prepared sheets. Data analysis was done with Microsoft Excel 2010 software.
resultsA minimum threshold of 50% concordance was used for comparison. Of the twenty (20) slides read, 100% concordance was obtained on eight (8) detection (positive vs negative) slides. Four (4) out of the six (6) parasite density evaluation slides obtained a concordance of less than 50%. Thirteen (13) out of the fourteen (14) identification slides obtained a concordance greater than 50%. Only one (1) identification slide obtained zero agreement from the microscopists. For species identification a concordance greater than 80% was noted and the microscopists obtained scores between 0.20 and 0.4 on a scale of 0 to 1 for parasite density reading. The microscopists obtained 100% precision, sensitivity, specificity and both negative and positive predictive values.
conclusionThis work demonstrated that the microscopic method of malaria diagnosis used in the LPM/HALD is in accordance with the requirements of WHO and ISO 15189. Further training of microscopists may be needed to maintain competency.
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.