↓ Skip to main content

Comparative evaluation of fluorescent in situ hybridization and Giemsa microscopy with quantitative real-time PCR technique in detecting malaria parasites in a holoendemic region of Kenya

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Comparative evaluation of fluorescent in situ hybridization and Giemsa microscopy with quantitative real-time PCR technique in detecting malaria parasites in a holoendemic region of Kenya
Published in
Malaria Journal, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1943-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph Osoga, John Waitumbi, Bernard Guyah, James Sande, Cornel Arima, Michael Ayaya, Caroline Moseti, Collins Morang’a, Martin Wahome, Rachel Achilla, George Awinda, Nancy Nyakoe, Elizabeth Wanja

Abstract

Early and accurate diagnosis of malaria is important in treatment as well as in the clinical evaluation of drugs and vaccines. Evaluation of Giemsa-stained smears remains the gold standard for malaria diagnosis, although diagnostic errors and potential bias estimates of protective efficacy have been reported in practice. Plasmodium genus fluorescent in situ hybridization (P-Genus FISH) is a microscopy-based method that uses fluorescent labelled oligonucleotide probes targeted to pathogen specific ribosomal RNA fragments to detect malaria parasites in whole blood. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of P-Genus FISH alongside Giemsa microscopy compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) in a clinical setting. Five hundred study participants were recruited prospectively and screened for Plasmodium parasites by P-Genus FISH assay, and Giemsa microscopy. The microscopic methods were performed by two trained personnel and were blinded, and if the results were discordant a third reading was performed as a tie breaker. The diagnostic performance of both methods was evaluated against qRT-PCR as a more sensitive method. The number of Plasmodium positive cases was 26.8% by P-Genus FISH, 33.2% by Giemsa microscopy, and 51.2% by qRT-PCR. The three methods had 46.8% concordant results with 61 positive cases and 173 negative cases. Compared to qRT-PCR the sensitivity and specificity of P-Genus FISH assay was 29.3 and 75.8%, respectively, while microscopy had 58.2 and 93.0% respectively. Microscopy had a higher positive and negative predictive values (89.8 and 68.0% respectively) compared to P-Genus FISH (56.0 and 50.5%). In overall, microscopy had a good measure of agreement (76%, k = 0.51) compared to P-Genus FISH (52%, k = 0.05). The diagnostic performance of P-Genus FISH was shown to be inferior to Giemsa microscopy in the clinical samples. This hinders the possible application of the method in the field despite the many advantages of the method especially diagnosis of low parasite density infections. The P-Genus assay has great potential but application of the method in clinical setting would rely on extensive training of microscopist and continuous proficiency testing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 14 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,073,810
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,773
of 5,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,084
of 316,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#99
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.