article · PLoS ONE
A sharp rise in confirmed malaria cases recorded from 2010 onwards is linked to the increased availability of diagnostic tools, primarily rapid diagnostic tests, rather than an actual resurgence of the disease. Prior to this period, a large proportion of malaria cases were treated based purely on clinical suspicion without diagnostic confirmation. The wide rollout of testing led to better detection of infections, which potentially contributed to improved clinical case management. Furthermore, the correlation between expanded testing and rising confirmed case counts indicates that malaria cases were previously underreported. Ultimately, the systematic introduction of diagnostic testing has improved the accuracy and reliability of routine health data used to describe and monitor malaria incidence over time.
Tracking disease trends accurately is essential for effective healthcare planning and resource distribution. When diagnostic tools such as rapid tests are introduced, apparent increases in case numbers often reflect better reporting rather than failing control measures. Recognising this difference ensures public health authorities interpret surveillance data correctly and direct interventions effectively.
The abstract does not indicate an application pathway.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
The sharp increase in confirmed malaria cases from 2010 is unlikely to be due to a resurgence of malaria, but is clearly associated with improved diagnostic availability, mainly the introduction of RDTs. Before that, a great part of malaria cases were treated based on clinical suspicion. This finding points to a better detection of cases that potentially contributed to improved case management. Furthermore, the expansion of diagnostic testing along with the increase in confirmed cases implies that before 2010, cases were underreported, and that the accuracy of routine data to describe malaria incidence has improved.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219853
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.
