# Unravelling the quality of malaria microscopy across Kinshasa, DR Congo

## TL;DR

This study evaluated malaria microscopy practices in Kinshasa, DR Congo, finding significant gaps in laboratory performance despite high staff qualification rates.

## Contribution

The study provides a detailed assessment of malaria microscopy quality and highlights discrepancies between staff qualifications and actual performance.

## Key findings

- Only 37.7% of cross-checked blood slides were correct, with 36.5% incorrect.
- Sensitivity was 79.4%, but specificity was low at 53.8%.
- Just one-third of participating labs met quality standards for malaria microscopy.

## Abstract

In the current study we assessed clinical laboratories’ staff ability across the city of Kinshasa with particular focus on their practices and performance regarding malaria microscopy.

This was a non-random cross-sectional study included clinical laboratories in Kinshasa and focused on cross-checking of blood slides, a questionnaire and checklist according to standardised analytic malaria microscopy procedures. Regarding the cross-checking of slides, participant responses were considered ‘corrects’ in cases of complete congruence with the reference; ‘acceptable’ for malaria-positive slides but no identification of Plasmodium species, stage of development, parasite density and/or reported as P. falciparum instead of ‘P. non falciparum’; and ‘incorrect’ if ‘false positive’ and ‘false negative’ cases.

Eighty-eight among the 90 targeted clinical laboratories (participation 97.8%) took part in the investigation from February to July 2019. The ability assessment revealed that individuals qualified to perform thick blood films (TBF) according to the national malaria control program (NMCP) procedures ranged from 48.6% to 100.0%. Overall cross-checking performance of 167 eligible routine slides was relatively low: 37.7%; 25.8% and 36.5% of correct, acceptable and incorrect responses, respectively. The first routine slide was correctly and acceptably scored respectively by 35.3% and 28.2% of participating laboratories (n = 85); and the second, by 40.2% and 23.2% respectively (n = 82). The sensitivity and specificity were found to be 79.4% and 53.8%, respectively. However, the relative high scores reported in relation with the ability needed to perform TBF based on NMCP standards contrasted with the poor performance from cross-checking slides. Consecutively, only one-third of the 88 participating laboratories reached a score > 60% in agreement with NMCP procedures and had acceptable responses to cross-checked slides.

The study was conducted as part of the activities relating to "Ensuring early diagnosis and prompt malaria treatment" component of the national malaria control strategy with NMCP support. More laboratories must implement clear and standardised malaria microscopy procedures, and need to include more rigorous quality control.