ArticleMalaria journal2026
Malaria misdiagnosis among febrile patients in Senegal: implications for the underestimation of Plasmodium species diversity and malaria burden.
Article in Malaria journal, 2026. 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMalaria remains a leading cause of febrile illness in Senegal, disproportionately affecting young populations. Test-and-treat remains a key strategy for malaria control but relies on accurate diagnosis and effective treatment. This study evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of malaria among febrile patients in three regions in Senegal with high incidence of malaria.
methodsData from 948 febrile patients were included to compare the diagnosis of malaria between standard of care malaria diagnostics (RDT and Microscopy) and references quantitative and qualitative PCR methods, which discriminates the four major human malaria species.
resultsThe analysis showed that PCR detected malaria infection in 75.29% (716/948) of patients, of which 70.25% involved non-falciparum species, including P. ovale, P. vivax, and P. malariae. Microscopy and RDT missed 31.5% and 18.92% of PCR-positive infections, respectively. In addition, half of mono-infections with non-falciparum species were misdiagnosed as P. falciparum by both microscopy and RDT. Furthermore, microscopy failed to detect a high proportion of P. falciparum infections confirmed by PCR, including those with higher parasitemia than the microscopy theoretical limit of detection.
conclusionsThe study highlights notable limitations and concerns for malaria diagnostic in Senegal, especially for microscopy-detectable P. falciparum parasitemia and non-falciparum infections. As malaria epidemiology trends shift toward mixed-species infections, the solely reliance on microscopy and RDT for the diagnosis of malaria may be critical since missed infections can lead to untreated cases and sustained transmission and impede elimination efforts.
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.