Misdiagnosis of malaria using wrong buffer substitutes for rapid diagnostic tests in poor resource setting in Enugu, southeast Nigeria.

MalariaWorld journal Pub Date : 2014-05-12 eCollection Date: 2014-01-01 DOI:10.5281/zenodo.10878928
Johnbull S Ogboi, Polycarp U Agu, Adeniyi F Fagbamigbe, Onyemocho Audu, Augustine Akubue, Ifeyinwa Obianwu
{"title":"Misdiagnosis of malaria using wrong buffer substitutes for rapid diagnostic tests in poor resource setting in Enugu, southeast Nigeria.","authors":"Johnbull S Ogboi, Polycarp U Agu, Adeniyi F Fagbamigbe, Onyemocho Audu, Augustine Akubue, Ifeyinwa Obianwu","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.10878928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A key to the effective management of malaria is prompt and accurate diagnosis, and the use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) is becoming relevant in the absence of reliable microscopy. This study explored the phenomenon of using the wrong buffer vial (often a kit from another brand or buffer from HIV rapid test kits), dextrose, saline or distilled water among health care providers who used RDTs for malaria diagnosis in resource poor settings in Enugu South East, Nigeria.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Laboratory personnel (medical laboratory scientists, technicians, assistants, nurses, community health extension workers (CHEW), community health officers (CHO) and doctors) were interviewed using structured questionnaires and results were checked using the SOP checklist. The selection criterion was a prior experience with using RDTs, and any facility that did not use RDTs was excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 80 study participants that completed their questionnaires, 56.3% reported that malaria diagnosis was positive using non-buffer RDTs detection while others reported negative results. Among the various professionals who used RDTs, 76.2% reported to have run out of RDT buffer stock at least once. Of the study participants that ran out of RDT buffer solution, 73% declared to have used non-RDT alternatives (physiological saline, 0.9% NaCl), distilled water, HIV buffer or ordinary water). Only 30% had received formal training on the proper usage and application of RDTs while 70% had never received any formal training on RDTs but learnt the technique of using RDT on the job.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated that at least three quarters of health care workers in a resource poor setting had run out of buffer when using malaria RDTs and that the majority of them had used buffer substitutes, which are known to generate inaccurate tests results. This has the consequence of misdiagnosis, thus potentially damaging the credibility of malaria control.</p>","PeriodicalId":74100,"journal":{"name":"MalariaWorld journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11100367/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MalariaWorld journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10878928","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A key to the effective management of malaria is prompt and accurate diagnosis, and the use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) is becoming relevant in the absence of reliable microscopy. This study explored the phenomenon of using the wrong buffer vial (often a kit from another brand or buffer from HIV rapid test kits), dextrose, saline or distilled water among health care providers who used RDTs for malaria diagnosis in resource poor settings in Enugu South East, Nigeria.

Materials and methods: Laboratory personnel (medical laboratory scientists, technicians, assistants, nurses, community health extension workers (CHEW), community health officers (CHO) and doctors) were interviewed using structured questionnaires and results were checked using the SOP checklist. The selection criterion was a prior experience with using RDTs, and any facility that did not use RDTs was excluded.

Results: Of the 80 study participants that completed their questionnaires, 56.3% reported that malaria diagnosis was positive using non-buffer RDTs detection while others reported negative results. Among the various professionals who used RDTs, 76.2% reported to have run out of RDT buffer stock at least once. Of the study participants that ran out of RDT buffer solution, 73% declared to have used non-RDT alternatives (physiological saline, 0.9% NaCl), distilled water, HIV buffer or ordinary water). Only 30% had received formal training on the proper usage and application of RDTs while 70% had never received any formal training on RDTs but learnt the technique of using RDT on the job.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that at least three quarters of health care workers in a resource poor setting had run out of buffer when using malaria RDTs and that the majority of them had used buffer substitutes, which are known to generate inaccurate tests results. This has the consequence of misdiagnosis, thus potentially damaging the credibility of malaria control.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在尼日利亚东南部埃努古资源贫乏的环境中,使用错误的缓冲剂替代快速诊断检测对疟疾进行误诊。
背景:有效管理疟疾的关键在于及时准确的诊断,而在缺乏可靠显微镜检查的情况下,疟疾快速诊断检测(mRDTs)的使用正变得越来越重要。本研究探讨了在尼日利亚埃努古东南部资源匮乏的环境中,使用RDT诊断疟疾的医疗服务提供者使用错误的缓冲瓶(通常是其他品牌的试剂盒或HIV快速检测试剂盒的缓冲液)、葡萄糖、生理盐水或蒸馏水的现象:使用结构化问卷对实验室人员(医学实验室科学家、技术员、助理、护士、社区卫生推广人员 (CHEW)、社区卫生官员 (CHO) 和医生)进行访谈,并使用 SOP 核对表检查结果。选择标准是曾经使用过 RDT,任何未使用 RDT 的机构均被排除在外:结果:在填写问卷的 80 位研究参与者中,56.3% 的人表示使用非缓冲液滴定管检测疟疾诊断结果呈阳性,其他人则表示结果呈阴性。在使用滴滴涕检测的各类专业人员中,76.2%的人表示至少有一次滴滴涕缓冲库存用完。在 RDT 缓冲溶液用完的研究参与者中,73% 声称使用过非 RDT 替代品(生理盐水,0.9% NaCl)、蒸馏水、HIV 缓冲液或普通水)。只有 30% 的人接受过关于正确使用和应用滴定管的正规培训,而 70% 的人从未接受过任何关于滴定管的正规培训,但在工作中学会了滴定管的使用技巧:这项研究表明,在资源匮乏的环境中,至少有四分之三的医护人员在使用疟疾检测试剂盒时缓冲液用完了,其中大多数人使用了缓冲液替代品,而众所周知,缓冲液替代品会导致检测结果不准确。这会造成误诊,从而可能损害疟疾防治工作的可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Biochemical features of the Cry4B toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. israelensis and its interaction with BT-R3, a bitopic cadherin G-protein coupled receptor in Anopheles gambiae. Relapsing Plasmodium vivax malaria in a 12-year-old Brazilian girl: A case report. Uneasy bedfellows: Public-Private partnerships for malaria control. Palestine 100 years ago seen through the malaria lens: an examination of successful malaria elimination, and of where the malaria community seems to have taken a wrong turning Regaining the path to malaria elimination: Lessons from the pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1