↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of three diagnostic methods (microscopy, RDT, and PCR) for the detection of malaria parasites in representative samples from Equatorial Guinea

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
156 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
523 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of three diagnostic methods (microscopy, RDT, and PCR) for the detection of malaria parasites in representative samples from Equatorial Guinea
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2481-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Berzosa, Aida de Lucio, María Romay-Barja, Zaida Herrador, Vicenta González, Luz García, Amalia Fernández-Martínez, Maria Santana-Morales, Policarpo Ncogo, Basilio Valladares, Matilde Riloha, Agustín Benito

Abstract

Malaria in Equatorial Guinea remains a major public health problem. The country is a holo-endemic area with a year-round transmission pattern. In 2016, the prevalence of malaria was 12.09% and malaria caused 15% of deaths among children under 5 years. In the Continental Region, 95.2% of malaria infections were Plasmodium falciparum, 9.5% Plasmodium vivax, and eight cases mixed infection in 2011. The main strategy for malaria control is quick and accurate diagnosis followed by effective treatment. Early and accurate diagnosis of malaria is essential for both effective disease management and malaria surveillance. The quality of malaria diagnosis is important in all settings, as misdiagnosis can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Microscopy and RDTs are the primary choices for diagnosing malaria in the field. However, false-negative results may delay treatment and increase the number of persons capable of infecting mosquitoes in the community. The present study analysed the performance of microscopy and RDTs, the two main techniques used in Equatorial Guinea for the diagnosis of malaria, compared to semi-nested multiplex PCR (SnM-PCR). A total of 1724 samples tested by microscopy, RDT, and SnM-PCR were analysed. Among the negative samples detected by microscopy, 335 (19.4%) were false negatives. On the other hand, the negative samples detected by RDT, 128 (13.3%) were false negatives based on PCR. This finding is important, especially since it is a group of patients who did not receive antimalarial treatment. Owing to the high number of false negatives in microscopy, it is necessary to reinforce training in microscopy, the "Gold Standard" in endemic areas. A network of reference centres could potentially support ongoing diagnostic and control efforts made by malaria control programmes in the long term, as the National Centre of Tropical Medicine currently supports the National Programme against Malaria of Equatorial Guinea to perform all of the molecular studies necessary for disease control. Taking into account the results obtained with the RDTs, an exhaustive study of the deletion of the hrp2 gene must be done in EG to help choose the correct RDT for this area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 523 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 523 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 77 15%
Student > Bachelor 69 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 9%
Researcher 39 7%
Student > Postgraduate 23 4%
Other 65 12%
Unknown 203 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 74 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 22 4%
Other 79 15%
Unknown 217 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,675,486
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,205
of 5,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,216
of 341,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#26
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.