Suppr超能文献

肯尼亚西部疟疾快速诊断检测诊断性能的现场评估

Field evaluation of diagnostic performance of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in western Kenya.

作者信息

Wanja Elizabeth W, Kuya Nickline, Moranga Collins, Hickman Mark, Johnson Jacob D, Moseti Carolyne, Anova Lalaine, Ogutu Bernhards, Ohrt Colin

机构信息

Malaria Diagnostics Centre, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Unit, Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.

Division of Experimental Therapeutics, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA.

出版信息

Malar J. 2016 Sep 7;15(1):456. doi: 10.1186/s12936-016-1508-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Malaria continues to be a major burden in the endemic regions of Kenya. Health outcomes associated with case management are dependent on the use of appropriate diagnostic methods. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have provided an important tool to help implement the WHO recommended parasite-based diagnosis in regions where expert microscopy is not available. One of the questions that must be answered when implementing RDTs is whether these tests are useful in a specific endemic region, as well as the most appropriate RDT to use. Data on the sensitivity and specificity of RDT test kits is important information to help guide test selection by national malaria control programmes.

METHODS

This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of RDTs including First Response (FR), CareStart (CS), SD Bioline (SD), and Binax Now (BN). The performance of these malaria kits was compared to microscopy, the gold standard, for the detection of malaria parasites. The malaria RDTs were also compared to PCR which is a more sensitive reference test. Five-hundred participants were included in the study through community screening (50 %) and testing suspected malaria cases referred from health facilities.

RESULTS

Of the 500 participants recruited, 33 % were malaria positive by microscopy while 51.2 % were positive by PCR. Compared to microscopy, the sensitivity of eight RDTs to detect malaria parasites was 90.3-94.8 %, the specificity was 73.3-79.3 %, the positive predictive value was 62.2-68.8 %, and the negative predictive value was 94.3-96.8 %. Compared to PCR, the sensitivity of the RDTs to detect malaria parasites was 71.1-75.4 %, the specificity was 80.3-84.4 %, the positive predictive value was 80.3-83.3 %, and the negative predictive value was 73.7-76.1 %. The RDTs had a moderate measure of agreement with both microscopy (>80.1 %) and PCR (>77.6 %) with a κ > 0.6.

CONCLUSION

The performance of the evaluated RDTs using field samples was moderate; hence they can significantly improve the quality of malaria case management in endemic regions in Kenya by ensuring appropriate treatment of malaria positive individuals and avoiding indiscriminate use of anti-malarial drugs for parasite negative patients.

摘要

背景

疟疾仍是肯尼亚流行地区的主要负担。与病例管理相关的健康结果取决于使用适当的诊断方法。快速诊断检测(RDTs)提供了一种重要工具,有助于在无法获得专业显微镜检查的地区实施世界卫生组织推荐的基于寄生虫的诊断方法。在实施RDTs时必须回答的一个问题是,这些检测在特定流行地区是否有用,以及使用哪种最合适的RDT。RDT检测试剂盒的敏感性和特异性数据是帮助国家疟疾控制规划指导检测选择的重要信息。

方法

本研究评估了First Response(FR)、CareStart(CS)、SD Bioline(SD)和Binax Now(BN)等RDTs的诊断性能。将这些疟疾检测试剂盒的性能与检测疟原虫的金标准显微镜检查进行比较。疟疾RDTs还与更敏感的参考检测方法PCR进行了比较。通过社区筛查(50%)和检测从医疗机构转诊的疑似疟疾病例,共有500名参与者纳入本研究。

结果

在招募的500名参与者中,33%通过显微镜检查为疟疾阳性,而51.2%通过PCR检测为阳性。与显微镜检查相比,8种RDT检测疟原虫的敏感性为90.3%-94.8%,特异性为73.3%-79.3%,阳性预测值为62.2%-68.8%,阴性预测值为94.3%-96.8%。与PCR相比,RDT检测疟原虫的敏感性为71.1%-75.4%,特异性为80.3%-84.4%,阳性预测值为80.3%-83.3%,阴性预测值为73.7%-76.1%。RDTs与显微镜检查(>80.1%)和PCR(>77.6%)的一致性中等,κ>0.6。

结论

使用现场样本评估的RDTs性能中等;因此,它们可以通过确保对疟疾阳性个体进行适当治疗,并避免对寄生虫阴性患者滥用抗疟药物,显著提高肯尼亚流行地区疟疾病例管理的质量。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e033/5015256/794ddd81c320/12936_2016_1508_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验