Cargando…

Reader technique as a source of variability in determining malaria parasite density by microscopy

BACKGROUND: Accurate identification and quantification of malaria parasites are critical for measuring clinical trial outcomes. Positive and negative diagnosis is usually sufficient for the assessment of therapeutic outcome, but vaccine or prophylactic drug trials require measuring density of infect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O'Meara, Wendy Prudhomme, Barcus, Mazie, Wongsrichanalai, Chansuda, Muth, Sinuon, Maguire, Jason D, Jordan, Robert G, Prescott, William R, McKenzie, F Ellis
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1712346/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17164007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-5-118
_version_ 1782131295360385024
author O'Meara, Wendy Prudhomme
Barcus, Mazie
Wongsrichanalai, Chansuda
Muth, Sinuon
Maguire, Jason D
Jordan, Robert G
Prescott, William R
McKenzie, F Ellis
author_facet O'Meara, Wendy Prudhomme
Barcus, Mazie
Wongsrichanalai, Chansuda
Muth, Sinuon
Maguire, Jason D
Jordan, Robert G
Prescott, William R
McKenzie, F Ellis
author_sort O'Meara, Wendy Prudhomme
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Accurate identification and quantification of malaria parasites are critical for measuring clinical trial outcomes. Positive and negative diagnosis is usually sufficient for the assessment of therapeutic outcome, but vaccine or prophylactic drug trials require measuring density of infection as a primary endpoint. Microscopy is the most established and widely-used technique for quantifying parasite densities in the blood. METHODS: Results obtained by 24–27 expert malaria microscopists, who had independently read 895 slides from 35 donors, were analysed to understand how reader technique contributes to discrepancy in measurements of parasite density over a wide range of densities. RESULTS: Among these 35 donations, standard deviations ranged from 30% to 250% of the mean parasite density and the percent discrepancy was inversely correlated with the mean parasite density. The number of white blood cells indexed and whether parasites were counted in the thick film or thin film were shown to significantly contribute to discrepancy amongst microscopists. CONCLUSION: Errors in microscopy measurements are not widely appreciated or addressed but have serious consequences for efficacy trials, including possibly abandoning promising vaccine candidates.
format Text
id pubmed-1712346
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-17123462006-12-21 Reader technique as a source of variability in determining malaria parasite density by microscopy O'Meara, Wendy Prudhomme Barcus, Mazie Wongsrichanalai, Chansuda Muth, Sinuon Maguire, Jason D Jordan, Robert G Prescott, William R McKenzie, F Ellis Malar J Research BACKGROUND: Accurate identification and quantification of malaria parasites are critical for measuring clinical trial outcomes. Positive and negative diagnosis is usually sufficient for the assessment of therapeutic outcome, but vaccine or prophylactic drug trials require measuring density of infection as a primary endpoint. Microscopy is the most established and widely-used technique for quantifying parasite densities in the blood. METHODS: Results obtained by 24–27 expert malaria microscopists, who had independently read 895 slides from 35 donors, were analysed to understand how reader technique contributes to discrepancy in measurements of parasite density over a wide range of densities. RESULTS: Among these 35 donations, standard deviations ranged from 30% to 250% of the mean parasite density and the percent discrepancy was inversely correlated with the mean parasite density. The number of white blood cells indexed and whether parasites were counted in the thick film or thin film were shown to significantly contribute to discrepancy amongst microscopists. CONCLUSION: Errors in microscopy measurements are not widely appreciated or addressed but have serious consequences for efficacy trials, including possibly abandoning promising vaccine candidates. BioMed Central 2006-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC1712346/ /pubmed/17164007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-5-118 Text en Copyright © 2006 O'Meara et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
O'Meara, Wendy Prudhomme
Barcus, Mazie
Wongsrichanalai, Chansuda
Muth, Sinuon
Maguire, Jason D
Jordan, Robert G
Prescott, William R
McKenzie, F Ellis
Reader technique as a source of variability in determining malaria parasite density by microscopy
title Reader technique as a source of variability in determining malaria parasite density by microscopy
title_full Reader technique as a source of variability in determining malaria parasite density by microscopy
title_fullStr Reader technique as a source of variability in determining malaria parasite density by microscopy
title_full_unstemmed Reader technique as a source of variability in determining malaria parasite density by microscopy
title_short Reader technique as a source of variability in determining malaria parasite density by microscopy
title_sort reader technique as a source of variability in determining malaria parasite density by microscopy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1712346/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17164007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-5-118
work_keys_str_mv AT omearawendyprudhomme readertechniqueasasourceofvariabilityindeterminingmalariaparasitedensitybymicroscopy
AT barcusmazie readertechniqueasasourceofvariabilityindeterminingmalariaparasitedensitybymicroscopy
AT wongsrichanalaichansuda readertechniqueasasourceofvariabilityindeterminingmalariaparasitedensitybymicroscopy
AT muthsinuon readertechniqueasasourceofvariabilityindeterminingmalariaparasitedensitybymicroscopy
AT maguirejasond readertechniqueasasourceofvariabilityindeterminingmalariaparasitedensitybymicroscopy
AT jordanrobertg readertechniqueasasourceofvariabilityindeterminingmalariaparasitedensitybymicroscopy
AT prescottwilliamr readertechniqueasasourceofvariabilityindeterminingmalariaparasitedensitybymicroscopy
AT mckenziefellis readertechniqueasasourceofvariabilityindeterminingmalariaparasitedensitybymicroscopy