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.

We compared the performance of Paracheck-Pf, a new and cheap rapid malaria test, with ICT-Pf/PvR and microscopy in two malaria surveys in Thai villages on the Thai-Burmese border. The specificity, sensitivity, predictive positive and negative values of the Paracheck-PfR and ICT-PfR tests were calculated taking microscopy results as the gold standard. The 294 ICT-Pf/Pv tests resulted in two invalid (no control line) and 11 doubtful results. Both the ICT-Pf/PvR and Paracheck-PfR tests reliably detected P. falciparum infections. However, Paracheck-PfR failed to detect three P. falciparum cases and likewise, ICT-Pf/PvR failed to detect the same three cases and an additional four cases. These seven cases were detected by microscopy and had a parasitaemia under 150 parasites/microl. At a cost of c. US $1.00, the Paracheck-PfR test, based on the detection of the P. falciparum specific HRP-2 protein, is a reliable, easy to use and affordable tool for the diagnosis of P. falciparum malaria.

Original publication




Journal article


Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH

Publication Date





99 - 101


Shoklo Malaria Research Unit, Mae Sod, Thailand.


Animals, Humans, Plasmodium falciparum, Malaria, Falciparum, Proteins, Microscopy, Mass Screening, Health Surveys, Sensitivity and Specificity, Cross-Sectional Studies, Predictive Value of Tests, Drug Resistance, Time Factors, Rural Health, Thailand