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.

Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are known to yield false-positive results, and their use in epidemiologic surveys will overestimate infection prevalence and potentially hinder efficient targeting of interventions. To examine the consequences of using RDTs in school surveys, we compared three RDT brands used during a nationwide school survey in Kenya with expert microscopy and investigated the cost implications of using alternative diagnostic approaches in identifying localities with differing levels of infection. Overall, RDT sensitivity was 96.1% and specificity was 70.8%. In terms of classifying districts and schools according to prevalence categories, RDTs were most reliable for the < 1% and > 40% categories and least reliable in the 1-4.9% category. In low-prevalence settings, microscopy was the most expensive approach, and RDT results corrected by either microscopy or polymerase chain reaction were the cheapest. Use of polymerase chain reaction-corrected RDT results is recommended in school malaria surveys, especially in settings with low-to-moderate malaria transmission.

Original publication

DOI

10.4269/ajtmh.2012.12-0215

Type

Journal article

Journal

Am J Trop Med Hyg

Publication Date

12/2012

Volume

87

Pages

1004 - 1011

Keywords

Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Health Care Costs, Health Planning, Humans, Kenya, Malaria, Microscopy, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Prevalence, Sensitivity and Specificity