English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  In developing countries, malaria diagnosis relies on microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests. In Senegal, national malaria control program (NMCP) regularly conducts supervisory visits in health services where malaria microscopy is performed. In this study, expert microscopists assessed the performance of laboratory technicians in malaria microscopy.    Methods  The present external quality assessment (EQA) was conducted in three different areas of malaria transmission. Participants were laboratory technicians previously trained by NMCP on malaria microscopy. Stored read slides were randomly collected for blinded re-checking by expert microscopists. At the same time a set of 8 slides (3 positive  P. falciparum  and 5 negative slides) were submitted to participants for proficiency testing. Microscopists performance were evaluated on the basis of the errors rates on slide reading—high false positive (HFP), high false negative (HFN), low false positive (LFP) and low false negative (LFN)—and the calculation of their sensitivities and specificities relative to expert microscopy. Data were entered and analysed using Microsoft Excel software.    Results  A total of 450 stored slides were collected from 17 laboratories for re-checking. Eight laboratories scored 100% of correct reading. Only one major error was recorded (HFP). Six laboratories recorded LFN results: Borrelia,  P. ovale , and low parasite densities (95 and 155 p/μl) were missed. Two  P. falciparum  slides were misidentified as  P. malariae  and one  P. ovale  slide as  P. vivax . The overall sensitivities and specificities for all participants against expert microscopists were 97.8 and 98.2% respectively; Sensitivities and specificities of hospital microscopists (96.7 and 98.9%) were statistically similar to those of health centre microscopists (98.5 and 97.8% respectively) (p = 0.3993 and p = 0.9412 respectively). Overall, a very good agreement was noted with kappa value of 0.96 (CI 95%  93.4–98.6%) relative to expert microscopy. Proficiency testing showed that among the 17 participants, 11 laboratories scored 100% of correct reading. Three LFN and four LFP results were recorded respectively. The  P. falciparum  slide with Maurer dots was misidentified as  P. ovale  in 1 centre and the same slide was misread as  P. vivax  in another centre; No major error (HFP or HFN) was noted.    Conclusion  EQA of malaria microscopy showed an overall good performance especially regarding  P. falciparum  detection. However, efforts need to be made addressing the ability to detect non-falciparum species and others endemic blood pathogens such as  Borrelia . The further NMCP training sessions and evaluations should consider those aspects to expect high quality-assured capacity for malaria microscopy.

Quality control of malaria microscopy reveals misdiagnosed non-falciparum species and other microscopically detectable pathogens in Senegal