preview

Clinical Sensitivity Lab Report

Decent Essays
Open Document

A comparison of methods is done in order to determine whether microscopy (the gold standard) or Qiagen Artus® Real Art would be better suited for a larger laboratory that handles both travelers and patients of endemic areas. The methods must be compared to determine which method would have a higher clinical specificity and sensitivity as well as other factors that would make one method better than the other. Clinical Sensitivity Clinical sensitivity of a method is how well a method will positively identify patients with a disease. A high sensitivity is essential in determining if a patient has a disease (Lalkhen & McCluskey, 2008, p.221). The clinical sensitivity of the microscopy method is 91% (Ohrt, Purnomo, Sutamihardja, Tang, & Kain, 2002, p. 540). However, the clinical sensitivity of the Qiagen artus® Real Art PCR is 99.5% (Farcas, Zhong, Mazzulli, & Kain, 2004, p.636). In conclusion of the two clinical sensitivities, the Qiagen artus® Real Art PCR method has a higher sensitivity in identifying patients with malaria. The lower limit of detection by a microscopy expert technician is 5 parasites/µl while an average technician is 50-100 …show more content…

The test limitations of microscopy include the quality of the smear, a low number of parasites, artifacts that resemble parasites and slide quality diminishes with time (Ohrt, Purnomo, Sutamihardja, Tang, & Kain, 2002, p.540). Test limitation for the Qiagen artus® Real Art PCR include possible contaminations or inhibition of PCR as well as the requirement for quality control reagents make it more expensive and difficult for rural areas to maintain also having the proper equipment (Tangpukdee, Duangdee, Wilairatana, & Krudsood, 2009, p.97). In conclusion, the microscopy method requires less reagents and equipment however, the quality of the slides can vary in addition to clarity of artifact versus

Get Access