Comparison of Parascreen Pan/Pf, Paracheck Pf and light microscopy for detection of malaria among febrile patients, Northwest Ethiopia
Comparison of Parascreen Pan/Pf, Paracheck Pf and light microscopy for detection of malaria among febrile patients, Northwest Ethiopia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.trstmh.2010.03.003
复制
发表时间：
2010-07-01
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Emerson, Paul M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Endeshaw, Tekola;Graves, Patricia M.;Emerson, Paul M.
两种疟疾快速诊断试验(RDT)--Parascreen PAN/PF(R)和Paracheck PF(R)--在埃塞俄比亚的农村保健中心进行了独立专家显微镜(金标准)检测。参与者(n=1997)在2007年疟疾高峰期(10月至12月)向阿姆哈拉地区州的十个保健中心介绍了推定的疟疾情况。镜检阳性475例(23.8%)，其中恶性疟原虫占57.7%，间日疟原虫占24.6%，混合感染占17.7%。发热患者Parascreen阳性442例(22.1%)，Paracheck阳性277例(13.9%)。副筛检的敏感性为79.6%，特异性为97.4%，阳性预测值(PPV)为86.9%，阴性预测值(NPV)为95.6%。对副筛检，间日疟原虫敏感性为74.4%，特异性为98.6%。PPV为76.3%，NPV为98.4%。恶性疟原虫对Paracheck的敏感性为73.7%，特异性为99.2%，PPV为95.3%，NPV为94.5%。两种试验对恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫的敏感度均显著提高(P<100/亩L)，其中副筛对恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫的敏感率分别为90.7%和91.5%，而Paracheck对恶性疟原虫的敏感率为87.9%。因此，与专家显微镜相比，Parascreen对恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫都表现得足够好，而且比Paracheck更有用，因为Paracheck没有显微镜。(C)2010年皇家热带医学和卫生学会。爱思唯尔有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
Two malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDT), Parascreen Pan/Pf(R) and Paracheck Pf(R), were tested in rural health centres in Ethiopia against independent expert microscopy (the gold standard). Participants (n = 1997) presented with presumptive malaria to ten health centers in Amhara Regional State during the 2007 peak malaria season (October to December). By microscopy, 475 (23.8%) suspected malaria cases were positive, of which 57.7% were P. falciparum; 24.6% P. vivax and 17.7% mixed infections. Parascreen and Paracheck were positive for 442 (22.1%) and 277 (13.9%) febrile patients, respectively. For Parascreen, P. falciparum sensitivity was 79.6%, specificity 97.4%, positive predictive value (PPV) 86.9%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 95.6%. For Parascreen, P. vivax sensitivity was 74.4%, specificity 98.6%. PPV 76.3% and NPV 98.4%. For Paracheck, P. falciparum sensitivity was 73.7%, specificity 99.2%, PPV 95.3%, NPV 94.5%. Sensitivity was significantly higher for both tests (P100/mu l of blood; in these cases Parascreen was 90.7% and 91.5% sensitive for P. falciparum and P. vivax, respectively, while Paracheck was 87.9% sensitive for P. falciparum. Parascreen thus performed adequately for both P. falciparum and P. vivax compared to expert microscopy and is more useful than Paracheck where microscopy is unavailable. (C) 2010 Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.