%0 Journal Article %J Malar.J. %D 2010 %T External quality assessment on the use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in a non-endemic setting2 %A Gillet,P. %A Mukadi,P. %A Kris Vernelen %A M. Van Esbroeck %A J.J. Muyembe-Tamfum %A Bruggeman,C. %A J. Jacobs %K 2009 %K a %K an %K Antwerp %K article %K AS %K assessment %K at %K Belgium %K Case %K Clinical %K Clinical Laboratory Techniques %K Clinical samples %K Comment %K Control %K Diagnosis %K Diagnostic Errors %K Diagnostic Tests,Routine %K electronic %K EQA %K external %K External quality assessment %K Humans %K i %K identification %K im %K INFECTION %K Institute %K IS %K journal %K Laboratories %K Luxembourg %K Malaria %K Medicine %K method %K methods %K Microscopy %K Observation %K ON %K p %K parasitology %K PARTICIPANTS %K performance %K present %K Quality %K Quality Assurance,Health Care %K Questionnaire %K Questionnaires %K report %K reports %K result %K results %K Sample %K Samples %K SB - IM %K Science %K stability %K standards %K statistics & numerical data %K Strategies %K Strategy %K study %K Temperature %K Test %K tests %K use %K VALIDATION %X BACKGROUND: Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are increasingly used as a tool for the diagnosis of malaria, both in endemic and in non-endemic settings. The present study reports the results of an external quality assessment (EQA) session on RDTs in a non-endemic setting. METHODS: After validation of antigen stability during shipment at room temperature, three clinical samples and a questionnaire were sent to clinical laboratories in Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg using malaria RDTs. Participants were asked to report the results of the RDTs as observations (visibility of the RDT control and test lines) and interpretations (report as formulated to the clinician). In addition, participants were invited to fill in a questionnaire on the place of RDTs in the diagnostic strategy of malaria. RESULTS: A total of 128/133 (96.2%) of clinical laboratories using RDTs participated. Six three-band and one four-band RDT brands were used. Analytical errors were rare and included (i) not recognizing invalid RDT results (1.6%) and (ii) missing the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum (0.8%). Minor errors were related to RDT test result interpretation and included (i) reporting "RDT positive" without species identification in the case of P. falciparum and non-falciparum species (16.9% and 6.5% respectively) and (ii) adding incorrect comments to the report (3.2%). Some of these errors were related to incorrect RDT package insert instructions such as (i) not reporting the possibility of mixed species infection in the case of P. falciparum and Plasmodium vivax (35.5% and 18.5% respectively) and (ii) the interpretation of P. vivax instead of non-falciparum species at the presence of a pan-species antigen line (4.0%). According to the questionnaire, 48.8% of participants processed