Cost Comparison of Malaria Diagnosis and Treatment in Nigeria
Author Information
Author(s): Ravi Parikh, Isaac Amole, Margaret Tarpley, Daniel Gbadero, Mario Davidson, Sten H Vermund
Primary Institution: Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Hypothesis
Is empiric treatment for malaria more cost-effective than microscopy-based diagnosis in Nigeria?
Conclusion
Empiric treatment of all suspected malaria cases was found to be cheaper than treating only those confirmed by microscopy.
Supporting Evidence
- Empiric treatment was cheaper for both adults and children compared to Giemsa smear confirmation.
- 38% of patients tested positive for malaria via Giemsa smears.
- The cost of empiric treatment was lower than the cost of testing and treating only confirmed cases.
Takeaway
Doctors treated everyone who looked like they had malaria, which ended up costing less than testing everyone first.
Methodology
Patients with clinical malaria were treated and tested using Giemsa smears to confirm diagnosis, with costs calculated for both treatment strategies.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to the lack of training for non-physician practitioners in malaria diagnosis.
Limitations
The study was conducted at only one center, limiting the generalizability of the findings.
Participant Demographics
304 patients, including 170 adults and 134 children under 16.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.01
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website