Open AccessAssessment of malaria diagnostic methods and treatments at a Ghanaian health facility
Author(s) -
James Kojo Prah,
Samuel Kofi Amoah,
Andrews Nicholas Yartey,
Adelaide Ampofo-Asiama,
Elvis Ofori Ameyaw
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
the pan african medical journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.287
H-Index - 30
ISSN - 1937-8688
DOI - 10.11604/pamj.2021.39.251.28996
Subject(s) - medicine , diagnosis of malaria , malaria , rapid diagnostic test , diagnostic test , cohen's kappa , pathology , pediatrics , plasmodium falciparum , machine learning , computer science
it has been more than a decade since the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended parasitological confirmation of malaria before treatment begins. Light microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests are currently being used for diagnosing malaria in routine clinical care settings. Many clinicians have however raised questions about the competencies of laboratory staff who perform these tests and the performance of these diagnostic methods. This study aimed at assessing the performance of microscopy and two rapid diagnostic test kits in the hands of routine laboratory staff compared to expert microscopy as well as assess the performance of clinical diagnosis. Methods this was a cross sectional study involving 799 participants of all ages who visited the out patient department of the University of Cape Coast Hospital with symptoms suggestive of malaria. Results when the different methods were compared to expert microscopy, the rapid diagnostic test kits had the highest sensitivities, Wondfo 94.83% (95% CI: 85.62-98.20) and CareStart 91.38 (95% CI: 81.02-97.14). Microscopy by laboratory staff had a sensitivity of 68.79 (95% CI: 55.46-80.46) whilst clinical diagnosis had the lowest sensitivity of 17.24 (95% CI: 8.59-29.43). Cohen´s kappa coefficient was used to measure the level of agreement of the methods with expert microscopy. Microscopy by laboratory staff, CareStart and Wondfo showed substantial measures of agreement (k = 0.737, 0.683, and 0.691 respectively). Conclusion these findings suggest that clinical diagnosis is highly unreliable whilst rapid diagnostic tests and microscopy performed by routine laboratory staff could be trusted by clinicians as reliable diagnostic methods.