Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

We compared the performance of Paracheck-Pf, a new and cheap rapid malaria test, with ICT-Pf/PvR and microscopy in two malaria surveys in Thai villages on the Thai-Burmese border. The specificity, sensitivity, predictive positive and negative values of the Paracheck-PfR and ICT-PfR tests were calculated taking microscopy results as the gold standard. The 294 ICT-Pf/Pv tests resulted in two invalid (no control line) and 11 doubtful results. Both the ICT-Pf/PvR and Paracheck-PfR tests reliably detected P. falciparum infections. However, Paracheck-PfR failed to detect three P. falciparum cases and likewise, ICT-Pf/PvR failed to detect the same three cases and an additional four cases. These seven cases were detected by microscopy and had a parasitaemia under 150 parasites/microl. At a cost of c. US $1.00, the Paracheck-PfR test, based on the detection of the P. falciparum specific HRP-2 protein, is a reliable, easy to use and affordable tool for the diagnosis of P. falciparum malaria.


Journal article


Trop Med Int Health

Publication Date





99 - 101


Animals, Cross-Sectional Studies, Drug Resistance, Health Surveys, Humans, Malaria, Falciparum, Mass Screening, Microscopy, Plasmodium falciparum, Predictive Value of Tests, Proteins, Rural Health, Sensitivity and Specificity, Thailand, Time Factors