尼日利亚中北部四项疟疾快速诊断检测在疟疾诊断中的表现

Ijezie Ntomchukwu Simon, M. Malau, M. David, Njab Jean Emile
{"title":"尼日利亚中北部四项疟疾快速诊断检测在疟疾诊断中的表现","authors":"Ijezie Ntomchukwu Simon, M. Malau, M. David, Njab Jean Emile","doi":"10.11648/J.IJIDT.20200504.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study on the performance of four rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kits (Global, LabAcon, SD Bioline and CareStart kits) in the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum was carried in North Central Nigeria for a period of twelve months to evaluate the performance of the kits using samples of symptomatic patients attending clinic. The performance of the kits was compared with that of microscopy as standard. Result of the sensitivity of the four RDT kits revealed that Global, LabAcon, SD Bioline and CareStart recorded 86.50%, 84.90%, 86.50% and 83.70% respectively while their level of specificity was 95.40%, 95.30%, 95.80% and 96.00% respectively. The four kits recorded no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity (p>0.005). SD Bioline, however, demonstrated the highest accuracy of 92.90% while LabAcon had the lowest accuracy (92.10%). The positive predictive values and negative predictive values of the four kits were; Global (87.80% and 94.10%), SD Bioline (87.80% and 94.30%), LabAcon (86.20% and 94.10%) and CareStart (85.00% and 94.60%). There was no significant difference in either the accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the four kits (p >0.005). The overall performance of the four kits was also insignificantly different (p>0.005). The performance of the four kits was statistically different compared with microscopy test (p<0.005), so the RDT kits cannot replace microscopy, being the gold standard but can, however, be used for malaria diagnoses for ease of analysis.","PeriodicalId":73792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of infectious disease and therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of Four Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) in the Diagnosis of Malaria in North Central Nigeria\",\"authors\":\"Ijezie Ntomchukwu Simon, M. Malau, M. David, Njab Jean Emile\",\"doi\":\"10.11648/J.IJIDT.20200504.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The study on the performance of four rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kits (Global, LabAcon, SD Bioline and CareStart kits) in the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum was carried in North Central Nigeria for a period of twelve months to evaluate the performance of the kits using samples of symptomatic patients attending clinic. The performance of the kits was compared with that of microscopy as standard. Result of the sensitivity of the four RDT kits revealed that Global, LabAcon, SD Bioline and CareStart recorded 86.50%, 84.90%, 86.50% and 83.70% respectively while their level of specificity was 95.40%, 95.30%, 95.80% and 96.00% respectively. The four kits recorded no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity (p>0.005). SD Bioline, however, demonstrated the highest accuracy of 92.90% while LabAcon had the lowest accuracy (92.10%). The positive predictive values and negative predictive values of the four kits were; Global (87.80% and 94.10%), SD Bioline (87.80% and 94.30%), LabAcon (86.20% and 94.10%) and CareStart (85.00% and 94.60%). There was no significant difference in either the accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the four kits (p >0.005). The overall performance of the four kits was also insignificantly different (p>0.005). The performance of the four kits was statistically different compared with microscopy test (p<0.005), so the RDT kits cannot replace microscopy, being the gold standard but can, however, be used for malaria diagnoses for ease of analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of infectious disease and therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of infectious disease and therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.IJIDT.20200504.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of infectious disease and therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/J.IJIDT.20200504.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在尼日利亚中北部进行了为期12个月的四种快速诊断测试(RDT)试剂盒(Global、LabAcon、SD Bioline和CareStart试剂盒)在恶性疟原虫诊断中的性能研究,以使用门诊有症状患者的样本评估试剂盒的性能。将试剂盒的性能与标准显微镜的性能进行了比较。四种RDT试剂盒的灵敏度结果显示,Global、LabAcon、SD Bioline和CareStart分别为86.50%、84.90%、86.50%和83.70%,特异性分别为95.40%、95.30%、95.80%和96.00%。四个试剂盒在敏感性和特异性方面没有显著差异(p>0.05)。然而,SD Bioline的准确率最高,为92.90%,而LabAcon的准确率最低(92.10%);Global(87.80%和94.10%)、SD Bioline(87.80%与94.30%)、LabAcon(86.20%与94.10%)和CareStart(85.00%与94.60%),四个试剂盒的阳性预测值和阴性预测值(p>0.05)。四个试剂箱的总体性能也没有显著差异(p>0.05,用于疟疾诊断以便于分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Performance of Four Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) in the Diagnosis of Malaria in North Central Nigeria
The study on the performance of four rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kits (Global, LabAcon, SD Bioline and CareStart kits) in the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum was carried in North Central Nigeria for a period of twelve months to evaluate the performance of the kits using samples of symptomatic patients attending clinic. The performance of the kits was compared with that of microscopy as standard. Result of the sensitivity of the four RDT kits revealed that Global, LabAcon, SD Bioline and CareStart recorded 86.50%, 84.90%, 86.50% and 83.70% respectively while their level of specificity was 95.40%, 95.30%, 95.80% and 96.00% respectively. The four kits recorded no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity (p>0.005). SD Bioline, however, demonstrated the highest accuracy of 92.90% while LabAcon had the lowest accuracy (92.10%). The positive predictive values and negative predictive values of the four kits were; Global (87.80% and 94.10%), SD Bioline (87.80% and 94.30%), LabAcon (86.20% and 94.10%) and CareStart (85.00% and 94.60%). There was no significant difference in either the accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the four kits (p >0.005). The overall performance of the four kits was also insignificantly different (p>0.005). The performance of the four kits was statistically different compared with microscopy test (p<0.005), so the RDT kits cannot replace microscopy, being the gold standard but can, however, be used for malaria diagnoses for ease of analysis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mycobacterial Nucleic Acids Modulate Host Innate Immune Responses. Streptococcus Pharyngitis with Anaerobes Infection Misdiagnosed as Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Infection: A Case Report The Intervening Effect of Preventive Use of Antibacterials During the Perioperative Period in Orthopedic Department Outcome Comparison Between Tocilizumab Alone Vs Tocilizumab Followed by Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) Group in Critical COVID-19 Disease To What Extent do Social Determinants of Health Modulate Presentation, ITU Admission and Outcomes among Patients with SARS-COV-2 Infection? An Exploration of Household Overcrowding, Air Pollution, Housing Quality, Ethnicity, Comorbidities and Frailty.
×
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