Microscopy and RDT test sensitivity: Difference between revisions
From MalariaETC
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="border-style: solid; border-width: 4px; color:black" | {| class="wikitable" style="border-style: solid; border-width: 4px; color:black" | ||
|colspan=" | |colspan="2" style = "font-size:110%; color:black; background: FFFAFA"|<span style="color:navy>'''The value of RDT compared with microscopy: thick blood films'''</span> | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|colspan=" | |colspan="2" style = "font-size:110%; color:black; background: FFFAFA"|<span style="color:navy>'''The value of RDT compared with microscopy: thick blood films'''</span> | ||
Compare with RDTs: | Compare with RDTs: | ||
Revision as of 15:12, 9 September 2024
Navigation
Go Back
| The value of RDT compared with microscopy: thick blood films
|
The value of RDT compared with microscopy: thick blood films
Compare with RDTs: P.falciparum is identified in the range x-y. Non-falciparum species are identified in the range x-y Other advantages: thin: may provide similar sensitivity to a routine lab if sufficient cells are examined but this is time consuming. Thin films identify all species and allow species recognition including mixed infection 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
Conclusions |