Actions

Thick vs Thin film comparison: Difference between revisions

From MalariaETC

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 46: Line 46:
|-
|-
| Thin film: Good - both parasite morphology and RBC characteristics are assessed
| Thin film: Good - both parasite morphology and RBC characteristics are assessed
|-
!'''3. Quantification of parasite number'''
|-
| Difficult: red cells are not seen so requires estimation and is therefore imprecise
|-
| Easier: parasites can be counted counted directly and assessed as a proportion of red cells
|}
|}
----
----

Revision as of 14:11, 14 February 2025


Navigation
>Main Malaria Index
>>Thick film - main page
>>>Current page: Thick film vs thin film


Relative merits of thick or thin films in malaria diagnosis



Feature Thick Film Thin Film
Sensitivity for detection Higher: detects low parasitaemia ~5–10 parasites/µL Lower: generally needs ~50 parasites/µL for reliable detection)
Species Identification Poor: RBC morphology lost and species-specific features may be difficult Excellent: Parasite morphology and RBC characteristics are readily observed
Quantification of parasitaemia Difficult: requires estimation so is imprecise Easier: parasites can be counted per number of RBCs
Preparation and staining Longer: requires air drying before careful staining to avoid artefact Faster: films are fixed and stained immediately with clearer morphology


TABLE: A COMPARISON OF THICK AND THIN FILMS

1. Sensitivity for detection
Thick film: Higher - can detect lower levels of parasitaemia ~5–10 parasites/µL
Thin film: Lower - generally requires ~50 parasites/µL for reliable detection
2. Species Identification
Poor: poor - red cell morphology is lost and species-specific features may not be seen
Thin film: Good - both parasite morphology and RBC characteristics are assessed
3. Quantification of parasite number
Difficult: red cells are not seen so requires estimation and is therefore imprecise
Easier: parasites can be counted counted directly and assessed as a proportion of red cells