ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Evaluation of Microscopy, Rapid Diagnostic Tests, and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for Malaria Diagnosis in Nigerian Children.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of malaria and its major parasite species in Bangladesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Malaria journal · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Utilizing Artificial Intelligence for Malaria Diagnostic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Infectious disease reports · 2026Review
- Multicountry surveillance study of acute febrile disease of unknown cause in sub-Saharan Africa.BMJ public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Malaria, a persistent public health issue in Nigeria, particularly among children, is often complicated by misdiagnosis, hindering effective treatment and control. The global adoption of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria has significantly improved management. This study, therefore, compares the diagnostic performance of microscopy, RDT, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Plasmodium falciparum detection in children in Kano state, Nigeria, providing crucial insights for effective control and elimination. Methods Capillary blood samples and dried blood spots (DBS) were collected from 200 febrile children in a selected health center in Kano and systematically tested using RDT, microscopy, and nested polymerase PCR. The sensitivity and specificity for each diagnostic method were calculated, with nested PCR as the reference to assess diagnostic accuracy. Structured questionnaires were used to obtain information on possible risk factors. Data were analyzed using univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analysis, with p<0.05 considered significant. Results Out of the 200 children enrolled in the study, 112 (56%) tested positive by microscopy, 60 (30%) by RDT, and 70 (35%) by PCR. Using PCR (n=70) as the reference test, microscopy demonstrated a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 53%, while the RDT exhibited a lower sensitivity of 27% but a higher specificity of 68%. False positivity rates of 22 (31.5%) for RDT and 33 (46.9%) for microscopy were observed. Regarding false negatives, RDT had a much higher rate of 51 (72.9%) than microscopy of 19 (27.1%). Conclusion The study divulges the limitations of RDT in malaria detection, particularly its low sensitivity. With its higher sensitivity, microscopy also showed a significant false-positive rate. The study suggests a practical solution combining RDT and microscopy for routine malaria diagnosis, which could significantly improve diagnostic accuracy. More ongoing research is needed to develop more suitable RDTs for routine malaria diagnosis in endemic communities.
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.