Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
| <mark>Journal publication date</mark> | 08/2015 |
|---|---|
| <mark>Journal</mark> | Transactions of The Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene |
| Issue number | 8 |
| Volume | 109 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Pages (from-to) | 529-531 |
| Publication Status | Published |
| <mark>Original language</mark> | English |
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis (LF) is based typically on either microfilaraemia as assessed by microscopy or filarial antigenaemia using an immuno-chromatographic test. While it is known that estimates of antigenaemia are generally higher than estimates of microfilaraemia, the extent of the difference is not known.
METHODS: This paper presents the results of an extensive literature search for surveys that estimated both microfilaraemia and antigenaemia in order to better understand the disparity between the two measures.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In some settings there was a very large disparity, up to 40-70%, between estimates of microfilaraemia and antigenaemia. Regression analysis was unable to identify any predictable relationship between the two measures. The implications of findings for risk mapping and surveillance of LF are discussed.