Hi,
Please I need your response to the above question.
I want to test the effectiveness of a malaria RDT kit in the field using blood samples that will be collected from consenting human participants.
In my protocol, the gold standard for comparison is questioned?
What do you think should be the gold standard for comparison? Is it microscopy or PCR or …..?
Thank you
Soniran O.T.(PhD)
I suggest PCR, microscopy and a different RDT, so thatt you can make a sound and valid comparison.
Hi Olajoju Temidayo Soniran
Microscopy is considered standard for clinical diagnostic purposes. For a research, I would suggest PCR since microscopy is subject to the possibility of bias (false negative/positive) due to its dependent operator experience. Also, submicroscopic malaria can be detected my PCR. Best,
@ Christian G Meyer, Thanks for your suggestion.
@ Eddie-Williams Owiredu, I appreciate your answer and clarifications.
Dear Soniran,
PCR is advised for your research purpose as it can help detect both misdiagnosed and undiagnosed cases, as well as asymptomatic careers with low parasitemia undetectable by PCR. Best
Malaria microscopy remains the gold standard. For the research purpose kindly get two WHO designated expert malaria microscopists.
@ Kassegne, thanks for your contribution. In the last part of your comment, I guess you meant "undetectable by RDT". Thanks.
@ Christian Meyer, I appreciate your further contribution.
@ Ifeorah and Prakash, I agree with you that microscopy is the gold standard as recommended by WHO.
In the light of limited fund that can't accommodate using PCR, recruiting two WHO certified microscopists to double read the slides might be a better alternative. Thanks.
And thanks everyone for your contributions.
- Badges
- Science method