Abstract:
An acute or chronic illness of the genus Plasmodium that is brought on by obligatory intracellular
protozoa is known as malaria. Anemia, splenomegaly, chills, and high fever paroxysms define the
clinical course. For millennia, malaria has posed a significant medical challenge throughout the
subcontinent.
A tiny protozoon that is a member of the Plasmodium species group and has multiple subspecies
is the cause of malaria. Certain Plasmodium species infect humans and cause illness.
An insoluble hemoglobin metabolite known as malaria pigment is accumulated by amoeboid
intracellular parasites of the genus Plasmodium. There are 172 Plasmodium species, and only five
of these species can cause malaria in humans. They include; P. malariae, P. falciparum, P. vivax,
P. ovale, and P. knowlesi.
The main aim of this study is to determine the performance of two of the malaria rdt kits used in
the New Juabeng North Municipality.
Data was collected by using three methods; the use of the two malaria rdt kits and the use of
microscopy which serves as the control experiment.
For every blood sample collected, the two rdts were used to check for the presence of malaria and
the results compared with the results from microscopy examination.
For every test performed, results were recorded for each rdt as well as the microscopy examination.
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS V22) software was used to conduct the analysis. On
the gathered data, a normality test was performed in order to confirm the accuracy of the responses.
For the purpose of evaluating the data, descriptive statistics and the Cronbach's Alpha reliability
test were applied. The relationship between the two categories that were picked was evaluated
using the Pearson’s correlation test.
The Pearson correlation value for the relationship between the moh rdt and the control was 0.500
whereas the Pearson value for the relation between the abbot rdt and the control was 0.988.
Comparing their sensitivities and specificities with the control, abbot rdt has a higher sensitivity
of 97.9% compared to 83.3% of the First response rdt and a specificity of 100% compared to
81.6% of the first response rdt.
