These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Diagnostic and prognostic utility of rapid strip (OptiMal and Paracheck) versus conventional smear microscopy in adult patients of acute, uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria in Mumbai, India.
    Author: Gogtay NJ, Dalvi SS, Rajgor D, Chogle AR, Karnad DR, Ramdas M, Aigal U, Kshirsagar NA.
    Journal: J Assoc Physicians India; 2003 Aug; 51():762-5. PubMed ID: 14655635.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The present study compared the diagnostic and prognostic utility of two rapid tests the (Paracheck and OptiMal) versus conventional smear microscopy. METHODS: Using two independent microscopists we carried out the three tests in 31 adult cases of smear positive, acute, uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. All three tests were done pretreatment, and on Days 8, 15 and 29. RESULTS: Compared to microscopy, the Paracheck had a sensitivity of 100%, while the OptiMal had a sensitivity of 83.7%. The lower sensitivity of OptiMal resulted from misidentification by both microscopists of 6/31 cases as Plasmodium vivax. As a follow up tool, the OptiMal was better than Paracheck, due to the earlier disappearance of the parasite LDH. Also in the Paracheck, between microscopists, there was a significant difference in reading the tests, on Days 8 and 15. CONCLUSION: Our study reiterates, the continued utility of conventional smear microscopy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]