Jump to content

buffy coat smear for malaria


mrdth5

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Apparently the use of a buffy coat smear to detect malaria came from a 2011 study that was published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine.   I does state however that a larger and more complete study should be performed before implementing this into common practice. 

Here is the link if you’re interested.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609286/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It state

 

Apparently the use of a buffy coat smear to detect malaria came from a 2011 study that was published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine.   I does state however that a larger and more complete study should be performed before implementing this into common practice. 

Here is the link if you’re interested.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609286/

 

It states that there are 36 examined that have been detected by conventional thick films already and the patient is already undergoing treatment. The buffy coat ones are taken after treatment - so assumedly only to detect whether the treatment is complete?

 

I think it is risky to use any form of films to determine completeness of the treatment as it may be that the malaria has gone into hepatic cells and is no longer circulating.

 

It definitely shouldn't be used as a primary diagnostic tool IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It state

 

 

It states that there are 36 examined that have been detected by conventional thick films already and the patient is already undergoing treatment. The buffy coat ones are taken after treatment - so assumedly only to detect whether the treatment is complete?

 

I think it is risky to use any form of films to determine completeness of the treatment as it may be that the malaria has gone into hepatic cells and is no longer circulating.

 

It definitely shouldn't be used as a primary diagnostic tool IMO.

 

My novice interpretation of this article:

Their test was to see if they could identify parasites in the buffy coat that they didn't see in a thick film, in patients they thought it should be possible due to previous thick film identifications.

And yes, they did in ~27% of cases.

Their recommendation was for add'l studies due to low sample size but that it might be a useful tool to consider to prevent false negatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My novice interpretation of this article:

Their test was to see if they could identify parasites in the buffy coat that they didn't see in a thick film, in patients they thought it should be possible due to previous thick film identifications.

And yes, they did in ~27% of cases.

Their recommendation was for add'l studies due to low sample size but that it might be a useful tool to consider to prevent false negatives.

 

The initial slides were positive and the susequent slides were negative. What I was trying to say was neither method should be used to determine efficacy of treatment due to the latent phase of treatment. And it certainly shouldn't be used as a primary diagnostic tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Advertisement

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.