Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

To improve practical, accurate diagnosis of malaria in the Amazon rainforest of Venezuela, two rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) (OptiMAL-IT® and FalciVax®) and a laboratory light microscope, used in the field with a battery-operated head lamp as an external light source, were evaluated against the standard laboratory microscope procedure for malaria detection. One hundred and thirty-six Yanomami patients were studied for the presence of malaria parasites. Thirty-three patients (24%) were positive for malaria (Plasmodium falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae). Twenty-one (64%) of the positive patients had <100 parasites/μl. Both RDTs showed poor sensitivity (24.2% for OptiMAL-IT® and 36.4% for FalciVax®) but good specificity (99% both for OptiMAL-IT® and FalciVax®). Field and laboratory microscopy showed sensitivities of 94% and 91%, respectively. The κ coefficient was 0.90, indicating a high agreement between field and laboratory microscopy. We conclude that (i) adequate slide reading cannot be substituted by either of the two RDTs in the Venezuelan Amazon and (ii) the use of a light source such as that described above makes slide reading more feasible than hitherto in remote areas without electricity. © 2007 Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.

Original publication




Journal article


Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

Publication Date





20 - 24