Validity and reliability of methods to microscopically detect and quantify malaria parasitaemia
2018; Wiley; Volume: 23; Issue: 9 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/tmi.13124
ISSN1365-3156
AutoresJohannes Mischlinger, Paul Pitzinger, Luzia Veletzky, Mirjam Groger, Rella Zoleko‐Manego, Ayôla Akim Adégnika, Selidji Todagbé Agnandji, Bertrand Lell, Peter G. Kremsner, Ghyslain Mombo‐Ngoma, Benjamin Mordmüller, Michael Ramharter,
Tópico(s)Vector-borne infectious diseases
ResumoAbstract Objectives The recommended microscopy method by WHO to quantify malaria parasitaemia yields inaccurate results when individual leucocyte (WBC) counts deviate from 8000 leucocytes/μl. A method avoiding WBC count assumptions is the Lambaréné method (LAMBA). Thus, this study compared validity and reliability of the LAMBA and the WHO method. Methods Three methods for counting parasitaemia were applied in parallel in a blinded assessment: the LAMBA, the WHO method using a standard factor of 8000 leucocytes/μl [‘simple WHO method’ (sWHO)] and the WHO method using measured WBC counts [‘accurate WHO method’ (aWHO)]. Validity was assessed by comparing LAMBA and sWHO to the gold standard measurement of aWHO. Reliability was ascertained by computation of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results 787 malaria‐positive thick smears were analysed. Parasitaemia as determined by LAMBA and sWHO increasingly deviated from aWHO the more patients’ WBCs diverged from 8000/μl. Equations of linear regression models assessing method deviation in percent from gold standard as function of WBC count were y = −0.00608 x (95% CI −0.00693 to −0.00524) + 47.8 for LAMBA and y = −0.0125 x (95% CI −0.01253 to −0.01247) + 100.1 for sWHO. Comparison of regression slopes showed that the deviation was twice as high for sWHO as for LAMBA ( P < 0.001). ICCs were excellent (>90%) for both methods. Conclusions The LAMBA has higher validity than the sWHO and may therefore be preferable in resource‐limited settings without access to routine WBC‐evaluation.
Referência(s)