Cargando…
A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends confirmatory diagnosis by microscopy or malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in patients with suspected malaria. In recent years, mobile medical applications (MMAs), which can interpret RDT test results have entered the market. To evaluate the perf...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805067/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33435999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03573-2 |
_version_ | 1783636243406389248 |
---|---|
author | Visser, Theodoor Ramachandra, Sumedh Pothin, Emilie Jacobs, Jan Cunningham, Jane Menach, Arnaud Le Gatton, Michelle L. dos Santos Souza, Samaly Nelson, Sydney Rooney, Luke Aidoo, Michael |
author_facet | Visser, Theodoor Ramachandra, Sumedh Pothin, Emilie Jacobs, Jan Cunningham, Jane Menach, Arnaud Le Gatton, Michelle L. dos Santos Souza, Samaly Nelson, Sydney Rooney, Luke Aidoo, Michael |
author_sort | Visser, Theodoor |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends confirmatory diagnosis by microscopy or malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in patients with suspected malaria. In recent years, mobile medical applications (MMAs), which can interpret RDT test results have entered the market. To evaluate the performance of commercially available MMAs, an evaluation was conducted by comparing RDT results read by MMAs to RDT results read by the human eye. METHODS: Five different MMAs were evaluated on six different RDT products using cultured Plasmodium falciparum blood samples at five dilutions ranging from 20 to 1000 parasites (p)/microlitre (µl) and malaria negative blood samples. The RDTs were performed in a controlled, laboratory setting by a trained operator who visually read the RDT results. A second trained operator then used the MMAs to read the RDT results. Sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for the RDTs were calculated in a Bayesian framework using mixed models. RESULTS: The RDT Sn of the P. falciparum (Pf) test line, when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (74% vs. average 47%) at samples of 20 p/µl. In higher density samples, the Sn was comparable to the human eye (97%) for three MMAs. The RDT Sn of test lines that detect all Plasmodium species (Pan line), when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (79% vs. average 56%) across all densities. The RDT Sp, when read by the human eye or MMAs was 99% for both the Pf and Pan test lines across all densities. CONCLUSIONS: The study results show that in a laboratory setting, most MMAs produced similar results interpreting the Pf test line of RDTs at parasite densities typically found in patients that experience malaria symptoms (> 100 p/µl) compared to the human eye. At low parasite densities for the Pf line and across all parasite densities for the Pan line, MMAs were less accurate than the human eye. Future efforts should focus on improving the band/line detection at lower band intensities and evaluating additional MMA functionalities like the ability to identify and classify RDT errors or anomalies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7805067 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78050672021-01-14 A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests Visser, Theodoor Ramachandra, Sumedh Pothin, Emilie Jacobs, Jan Cunningham, Jane Menach, Arnaud Le Gatton, Michelle L. dos Santos Souza, Samaly Nelson, Sydney Rooney, Luke Aidoo, Michael Malar J Research BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends confirmatory diagnosis by microscopy or malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in patients with suspected malaria. In recent years, mobile medical applications (MMAs), which can interpret RDT test results have entered the market. To evaluate the performance of commercially available MMAs, an evaluation was conducted by comparing RDT results read by MMAs to RDT results read by the human eye. METHODS: Five different MMAs were evaluated on six different RDT products using cultured Plasmodium falciparum blood samples at five dilutions ranging from 20 to 1000 parasites (p)/microlitre (µl) and malaria negative blood samples. The RDTs were performed in a controlled, laboratory setting by a trained operator who visually read the RDT results. A second trained operator then used the MMAs to read the RDT results. Sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for the RDTs were calculated in a Bayesian framework using mixed models. RESULTS: The RDT Sn of the P. falciparum (Pf) test line, when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (74% vs. average 47%) at samples of 20 p/µl. In higher density samples, the Sn was comparable to the human eye (97%) for three MMAs. The RDT Sn of test lines that detect all Plasmodium species (Pan line), when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (79% vs. average 56%) across all densities. The RDT Sp, when read by the human eye or MMAs was 99% for both the Pf and Pan test lines across all densities. CONCLUSIONS: The study results show that in a laboratory setting, most MMAs produced similar results interpreting the Pf test line of RDTs at parasite densities typically found in patients that experience malaria symptoms (> 100 p/µl) compared to the human eye. At low parasite densities for the Pf line and across all parasite densities for the Pan line, MMAs were less accurate than the human eye. Future efforts should focus on improving the band/line detection at lower band intensities and evaluating additional MMA functionalities like the ability to identify and classify RDT errors or anomalies. BioMed Central 2021-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7805067/ /pubmed/33435999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03573-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Visser, Theodoor Ramachandra, Sumedh Pothin, Emilie Jacobs, Jan Cunningham, Jane Menach, Arnaud Le Gatton, Michelle L. dos Santos Souza, Samaly Nelson, Sydney Rooney, Luke Aidoo, Michael A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests |
title | A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests |
title_full | A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests |
title_fullStr | A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests |
title_short | A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests |
title_sort | comparative evaluation of mobile medical apps (mmas) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805067/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33435999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03573-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vissertheodoor acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT ramachandrasumedh acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT pothinemilie acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT jacobsjan acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT cunninghamjane acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT menacharnaudle acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT gattonmichellel acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT dossantossouzasamaly acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT nelsonsydney acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT rooneyluke acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT aidoomichael acomparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT vissertheodoor comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT ramachandrasumedh comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT pothinemilie comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT jacobsjan comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT cunninghamjane comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT menacharnaudle comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT gattonmichellel comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT dossantossouzasamaly comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT nelsonsydney comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT rooneyluke comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests AT aidoomichael comparativeevaluationofmobilemedicalappsmmasforreadingandinterpretingmalariarapiddiagnostictests |