Research ExplorerPublicationsValidity and reliability of methods to microscopically detec...

Validity and reliability of methods to microscopically detect and quantify malaria parasitaemia

Standard

Validity and reliability of methods to microscopically detect and quantify malaria parasitaemia. / Mischlinger, Johannes; Pitzinger, Paul; Veletzky, Luzia; Groger, Mirjam; Zoleko-Manego, Rella; Adegnika, Ayola A; Agnandji, Selidji T; Lell, Bertrand; Kremsner, Peter G; Mombo-Ngoma, Ghyslain; Mordmüller, Benjamin; Ramharter, Michael.

In: TROP MED INT HEALTH, Vol. 23, No. 9, 09.2018, p. 980-991.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Mischlinger, J, Pitzinger, P, Veletzky, L, Groger, M, Zoleko-Manego, R, Adegnika, AA, Agnandji, ST, Lell, B, Kremsner, PG, Mombo-Ngoma, G, Mordmüller, B & Ramharter, M 2018, 'Validity and reliability of methods to microscopically detect and quantify malaria parasitaemia', TROP MED INT HEALTH, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 980-991. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13124

APA

Mischlinger, J., Pitzinger, P., Veletzky, L., Groger, M., Zoleko-Manego, R., Adegnika, A. A., Agnandji, S. T., Lell, B., Kremsner, P. G., Mombo-Ngoma, G., Mordmüller, B., & Ramharter, M. (2018). Validity and reliability of methods to microscopically detect and quantify malaria parasitaemia. TROP MED INT HEALTH, 23(9), 980-991. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13124

Vancouver

Mischlinger J, Pitzinger P, Veletzky L, Groger M, Zoleko-Manego R, Adegnika AA et al. Validity and reliability of methods to microscopically detect and quantify malaria parasitaemia. TROP MED INT HEALTH. 2018 Sep;23(9):980-991. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13124

Bibtex

@article{bc8c3af94cc94892bceb1d69624b0137,
title = "Validity and reliability of methods to microscopically detect and quantify malaria parasitaemia",
abstract = "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 Lambar{\'e}n{\'e} 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 = -0.00608x (95% CI -0.00693 to -0.00524) + 47.8 for LAMBA and y = -0.0125x (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.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Johannes Mischlinger and Paul Pitzinger and Luzia Veletzky and Mirjam Groger and Rella Zoleko-Manego and Adegnika, {Ayola A} and Agnandji, {Selidji T} and Bertrand Lell and Kremsner, {Peter G} and Ghyslain Mombo-Ngoma and Benjamin Mordm{\"u}ller and Michael Ramharter",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2018",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1111/tmi.13124",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "980--991",
journal = "TROP MED INT HEALTH",
issn = "1360-2276",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity and reliability of methods to microscopically detect and quantify malaria parasitaemia

AU - Mischlinger, Johannes

AU - Pitzinger, Paul

AU - Veletzky, Luzia

AU - Groger, Mirjam

AU - Zoleko-Manego, Rella

AU - Adegnika, Ayola A

AU - Agnandji, Selidji T

AU - Lell, Bertrand

AU - Kremsner, Peter G

AU - Mombo-Ngoma, Ghyslain

AU - Mordmüller, Benjamin

AU - Ramharter, Michael

N1 - © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - 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 = -0.00608x (95% CI -0.00693 to -0.00524) + 47.8 for LAMBA and y = -0.0125x (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.

AB - 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 = -0.00608x (95% CI -0.00693 to -0.00524) + 47.8 for LAMBA and y = -0.0125x (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.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1111/tmi.13124

DO - 10.1111/tmi.13124

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 29956431

VL - 23

SP - 980

EP - 991

JO - TROP MED INT HEALTH

JF - TROP MED INT HEALTH

SN - 1360-2276

IS - 9

ER -