ArticleMalariaWorld journal2024
Unravelling the quality of malaria microscopy across Kinshasa, DR Congo.
Article in MalariaWorld journal, 2024. 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, 0 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the current study we assessed clinical laboratories' staff ability across the city of Kinshasa with particular focus on their practices and performance regarding malaria microscopy. Materials and Methods: This was a non-random cross-sectional study included clinical laboratories in Kinshasa and focused on cross-checking of blood slides, a questionnaire and checklist according to standardised analytic malaria microscopy procedures. Regarding the cross-checking of slides, participant responses were considered 'corrects' in cases of complete congruence with the reference; 'acceptable' for malaria-positive slides but no identification of Results: Eighty-eight among the 90 targeted clinical laboratories (participation 97.8%) took part in the investigation from February to July 2019. The ability assessment revealed that individuals qualified to perform thick blood films (TBF) according to the national malaria control program (NMCP) procedures ranged from 48.6% to 100.0%. Overall cross-checking performance of 167 eligible routine slides was relatively low: 37.7%; 25.8% and 36.5% of correct, acceptable and incorrect responses, respectively. The first routine slide was correctly and acceptably scored respectively by 35.3% and 28.2% of participating laboratories (n = 85); and the second, by 40.2% and 23.2% respectively (n = 82). The sensitivity and specificity were found to be 79.4% and 53.8%, respectively. However, the relative high scores reported in relation with the ability needed to perform TBF based on NMCP standards contrasted with the poor performance from cross-checking slides. Consecutively, only one-third of the 88 participating laboratories reached a score > 60% in agreement with NMCP procedures and had acceptable responses to cross-checked slides. Conclusions: The study was conducted as part of the activities relating to "Ensuring early diagnosis and prompt malaria treatment" component of the national malaria control strategy with NMCP support. More laboratories must implement clear and standardised malaria microscopy procedures, and need to include more rigorous quality control.
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.