article · Malaria Journal
This study highlights significant fine-scale variability in malaria burden within and between the study districts and emphasizes the variable performance of the testing methods when stratifying risk at local scales. While RDTs and microscopy were effective in high-transmission areas, they performed poorly in low-transmission settings; and classified most villages as very low or low risk. In contrast, qPCR classified most villages as moderate or high risk. The findings emphasize that, where precise mapping and effective targeting of malaria are required in localized settings, tests must be both operationally feasible and highly sensitive. Furthermore, when planning microstratification efforts to guide local control measures, it is crucial to carefully consider both the strengths and limitations of the available data and the testing methods employed.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1186/s12936-024-05191-8
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.