Background: Microscopic examination of thick and thin blood films is the gold standard in current guidelines for the diagnosis of malaria, but guidelines do not uniformly agree on which combination of other methods should be used and when. Methods: Three questionnaires were sent between March 2018 and September 2019 to laboratories subscribing to the external quality assessment scheme for the diagnosis of blood and intestinal parasites of the Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories in order to investigate how much variation in the laboratory diagnosis of malaria between different clinical laboratories is present in the Netherlands. Results: The questionnaires were partially or fully completed by 67 of 77 (87%) laboratories. Only 9 laboratories reported 10 or more malaria positive patients per year. Most laboratories use a different diagnostic strategy, within office versus outside office hours depending on the screening assay result. Within office hours, 62.5% (35/56) of the responding laboratories perform an immunochromatographic test (ICT) in combination with microscopic examination of thick and thin blood films without additional examinations, such as Quantitative Buffy Coat and/or rtPCR analysis. Outside office hours 85.7% (48/56) of laboratories use an ICT as single screening assay and positive results are immediately confirmed by thick and thin blood films without additional examinations (89.6%, 43/48). In case of a negative ICT result outside office hours, 70.8% (34/48) of the laboratories perform microscopic examination of the thick film the next morning and 22.9% (11/48) confirm the negative ICT result immediately. Furthermore, substantial differences were found in the microscopic examinations of thick and thin blood films; the staining, theoretical sensitivity of the thick film and determination of parasitaemia. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a remarkably high variation between laboratories in both their diagnostic strategy as well as their methods for microscopic examination for the diagnosis of malaria in a clinical setting, despite existing national and international guidelines. While the impact of these variations on the accuracy of the diagnosis of malaria is yet unknown, these findings should stimulate clinical laboratories to critically review their own diagnostic strategy.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
The participating laboratories are thanked for completing the survey. Nicolette van der Ham, Theo Schuurs, Titia Kortbeek and all technical personnel of the expert laboratories are thanked for their excellent contribution to the organization of the EQAS for parasitology of the SKML.
© 2021, The Author(s).