Diagnostic accuracy of an automated microscope solution (miLab™) in detecting malaria parasites in symptomatic patients at point-of-care in Sudan: a case–control study

Abstract

BackgroundMicroscopic detection of malaria parasites is labour-intensive, time-consuming, and expertise-demanding. Moreover, the slide interpretation is highly dependent on the staining technique and the technician’s expertise. Therefore, there is a growing interest in next-generation, fully- or semi-integrated microscopes that can improve slide preparation and examination. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of miLab™ (Noul Inc., Republic of Korea), a fully-integrated automated microscopy device for the detection of malaria parasites in symptomatic patients at point-of-care in Sudan.MethodsThis was a prospective, case–control diagnostic accuracy study conducted in primary health care facilities in rural Khartoum, Sudan in 2020. According to the outcomes of routine on-site microscopy testing, 100 malaria-positive and 90 malaria-negative patients who presented at the health facility and were 5 years of age or older were enrolled consecutively. All consenting patients underwent miLab™ testing and received a negative or suspected result. For the primary analysis, the suspected results were regarded as positive (automated mode). For the secondary analysis, the operator reviewed the suspected results and categorized them as either negative or positive (corrected mode). Nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used as the reference standard, and expert light microscopy as the comparator.ResultsOut of the 190 patients, malaria diagnosis was confirmed by PCR in 112 and excluded in 78. The sensitivity of miLab™ was 91.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84.2–95.6%) and the specificity was 66.7% (95% Cl 55.1–67.7%) in the automated mode. The specificity increased to 96.2% (95% Cl 89.6–99.2%), with operator intervention in the corrected mode. Concordance of miLab with expert microscopy was substantial (kappa 0.65 [95% CI 0.54–0.76]) in the automated mode, but almost perfect (kappa 0.97 [95% CI 0.95–0.99]) in the corrected mode. A mean difference of 0.359 was found in the Bland–Altman analysis of the agreement between expert microscopy and miLab™ for quantifying parasite counts.ConclusionWhen used in a clinical context, miLab™ demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity. Expert intervention was shown to be required to improve the device’s specificity in its current version. miLab™ in the corrected mode performed similar to expert microscopy. Before clinical application, more refinement is needed to ensure full workflow automation and eliminate human intervention.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04558515