Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Cheap paper microscopes, together with paper microfluidic "lab on a stamp" applications, are already available, and have revolutionized diagnostics worldwide.
Rapid universal testing for malaria, with elevated diagnostic accuracy, can be established even in low resource settings.
Reference http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/04/cheap-microscopes
Over diagnosis (False Positives) is still okay (these will be over treated) but under diagnosis (false negatives) should not be there in Plasmodium falciparum as it is dangerous malaria. Therefore, a test for malaria should have a high negative predictive value (should be 100%), i.e., the test rendered negative does not have Malaria. Moreover, a high sensitivity i.e. a negative test rules out the disease.
Re: Achieving universal testing for malaria
Cheap paper microscopes, together with paper microfluidic "lab on a stamp" applications, are already available, and have revolutionized diagnostics worldwide.
Rapid universal testing for malaria, with elevated diagnostic accuracy, can be established even in low resource settings.
Reference
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/04/cheap-microscopes
Competing interests: No competing interests