↓ Skip to main content

Multi-method assessment of patients with febrile illness reveals over-diagnosis of malaria in rural Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multi-method assessment of patients with febrile illness reveals over-diagnosis of malaria in rural Uganda
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12936-016-1502-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ria R. Ghai, Mary I. Thurber, Azza El Bakry, Colin A. Chapman, Tony L. Goldberg

Abstract

Health clinics in rural Africa are typically resource-limited. As a result, many patients presenting with fever are treated with anti-malarial drugs based only on clinical presentation. This is a considerable issue in Uganda, where malaria is routinely over-diagnosed and over-treated, constituting a wastage of resources and an elevated risk of mortality in wrongly diagnosed patients. However, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria are increasingly being used in health facilities. Being fast, easy and inexpensive, RDTs offer the opportunity for feasible diagnostic capacity in resource-limited areas. This study evaluated the rate of malaria misdiagnosis and the accuracy of RDTs in rural Uganda, where presumptive diagnosis still predominates. Specifically, the diagnostic accuracy of "gold standard" methods, microscopy and PCR, were compared to the most feasible method, RDTs. Patients presenting with fever at one of two health clinics in the Kabarole District of Uganda were enrolled in this study. Blood was collected by finger prick and used to administer RDTs, make blood smears for microscopy, and blot Whatman FTA cards for DNA extraction, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification, and sequencing. The accuracy of RDTs and microscopy were assessed relative to PCR, considered the new standard of malaria diagnosis. A total of 78 patients were enrolled, and 31 were diagnosed with Plasmodium infection by at least one method. Comparing diagnostic pairs determined that RDTs and microscopy performed similarly, being 92.6 and 92.0 % sensitive and 95.5 and 94.4 % specific, respectively. Combining both methods resulted in a sensitivity of 96.0 % and specificity of 100 %. However, both RDTs and microscopy missed one case of non-falciparum malaria (Plasmodium malariae) that was identified and characterized by PCR and sequencing. In total, based on PCR, 62.0 % of patients would have been misdiagnosed with malaria if symptomatic diagnosis was used. Results suggest that diagnosis of malaria based on symptoms alone appears to be highly inaccurate in this setting. Furthermore, RDTs were very effective at diagnosing malaria, performing as well or better than microscopy. However, only PCR and DNA sequencing detected non-P. falciparum species, which highlights an important limitation of this test and a treatment concern for non-falciparum malaria patients. Nevertheless, RDTs appear the only feasible method in rural or resource-limited areas, and therefore offer the best way forward in malaria management in endemic countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Other 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 32 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2021.
All research outputs
#4,987,274
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,180
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,144
of 341,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#28
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.