Table 1 Characteristics of current malaria diagnostic tools used in case management and surveillance
From: Malaria and the ‘last’ parasite: how can technology help?
LoD (p/µL or ng mL−1) | Sensitivity (%) (95% CI) | Specificity (%) (95% CI) | Cost ($US/test) | Time | Other requirements | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Instrument | Test | ||||||
Case management | |||||||
Microscopy | Expert: 4–20 [18] | Depends on microscopist | ~ 3000 | 0.12–0.40 [19] | 60 min [18] | Trained personnel, microscope, Giemsa stain [18] | |
Average: 50–200 [19] | |||||||
RDTs | Existing RDTs: 100 p/µL [22] Latest product: 80 pg/mL for PfHRP2 [21] | > 85% depending on species [19] | > 99% [19] | No need for expensive instrument | 0.55–1.50 [18] | 20 min [20] | Test kit, appropriate storage conditions [18] |
Surveillance | |||||||
RDTs | Latest product: 80 pg/mL for PfHRP2 [21] | > 85% depending on species [19] | > 99% [19] | No need for expensive instrument | 0.55–1.50 [18] | 20 min [20] | Test kit, appropriate storage conditions [18] |
PCR | 26 (real-time) [10] | 100% [23] | > 99% [10] | Real-time instrument > 20,000 [25] | 1.5–4.0 [24] | Standard > 6 h | Thermocycler, cold chain, power, reagent grade, water |
− 0.5 to 5. 0 [24] | |||||||
LAMP | 47 (real-time) [10] | 83.3% [22] | > 99% [22] | Conventional PCR and LAMP ~ 5000 [25] | 0.40–0.70 [24] | 60 min | Heat source for amplification and DNA extraction |
≥ 1 [23] | 97.3% [24] | > 85% [23] | |||||