SynthesisMalaria journal2026
Diagnostic performance of malaria microscopy among laboratory professionals in Ethiopia: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalaria remains a major public health concern in Ethiopia, where light microscopy serves as the primary diagnostic method. Accurate microscopy performance among laboratory professionals is critical for appropriate case management, rational antimalarial use, and malaria control efforts. This systematic review synthesized available evidence on the diagnostic performance of malaria microscopy in Ethiopia.
methodsThis systematic review evaluated malaria microscopy performance in Ethiopia in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Electronic databases and manual searches were used to identify cross-sectional studies published between 2014 and 2021 that evaluated malaria microscopy performance using External Quality Assessment (EQA) components. Extracted indicators included sensitivity, specificity, detection agreement, species identification agreement, and associated factors. Due to the absence of primary numerator and denominator data in most studies, quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible; therefore, findings were summarized descriptively using ranges and means.
resultsTwelve cross-sectional studies involving 1173 laboratory professionals from 533 public health laboratories were included. Sensitivity ranged from 62 to 94.7% (mean: 78.9%), while specificity ranged from 79.7 to 100% (mean: 90.8%). Detection agreement averaged 85.2% (range: 71.4-97.3%). Species identification agreement was lower, averaging 70.6% (range: 43.8-95.0%). Frequently reported factors associated with suboptimal performance included inadequate refresher training, limited EQA participation, poor smear preparation and staining quality, insufficient supportive supervision, and high workload.
conclusionAlthough malaria parasite detection and specificity by microscopy are relatively satisfactory in Ethiopia, sensitivity and species identification accuracy remain below WHO-recommended benchmarks. Strengthened competency-based training, structured EQA implementation, improved slide preparation practices, and enhanced supportive supervision are essential to improve diagnostic performance and support malaria 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.