Microscopy and RDT test sensitivity

---

Navigation
Go Back

---

The value of RDT compared with microscopy: thick blood films In ideal conditions: A well-trained microscopist with experience in malaria, viewing a well-prepared thick blood film using a good quality microscope may detect better than 1 infected cell per 1000 total red cells. This is equivalent to around 50 parasites/ul. However, in practice it is estimated that a less experienced microscopist in equivalent conditions may acheive less sensitivity - perhaps 1 parasite in 100 red cells - equivalent to 500 parasites/μl. Both these outcomes are as good or better than an RDT test for detecting P.falciparum, and exceed what might be expected for other malaria species. In less ideal conditions: If equipment, staining quality, or microscopic experience is less good, then RDTs may have equivalent or superior sensitivity to microscopy. However, it is important in these conditions to understand the limitations of the selected test in terms of species identiication and sensitivity. The value of RDT compared with microscopy: thin blood films Thin films may provide similar sensitivity to a routine laboratory for an experienced morphologist with sufficient time and following recommended practices. Many people are more familiar with thin films and feel more comfortable with this approach, although it is not the currently recommended practice. Thin films however offer some advantages: Species may be identified much more confidently using tin films (including mixed infectionz) The % of red cells infected by parasites is much more accurate by thin film Conclusions and are unaffected by problems of gene deletion or poorly-detected species. Allow parasite level to be detected. Achievable sensitivity: these outcomes are highly dependent on the quality of preparation, the facilities available to examine the film, and the skill of the operator. In many malarial endemic regions this sensitivity will not be achieved. RDTs Less affected by operator skill, facilities or training: may be at least as good as morphology where expertise is limited. Provide a more rapid turnaround time. Disadvantages compared with blood: False negatives and poor at some species