Encyclopedia of Malaria

Living Edition
| Editors: Peter G. Kremsner, Sanjeev Krishna

Malaria Diagnostic Platform, Light Microscopy Enhancements/Digital Microscopy

  • Ben WilsonEmail author
  • David Bell
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8757-9_106-1



Light microscopy has long been a mainstay of malaria diagnosis but has significant drawbacks that reduce its accuracy. Various modifications have been developed and are under development, to improve microscopy accuracy, including modifications to reagents and imaging systems, and automated image processing to reduce the human element contributing to poor performance.


Examination of Giemsa-stained blood films has been a standard of malaria diagnosis for more than 100 years. When performed by well-trained technicians, the method has high accuracy for malaria diagnosis and gives a range of information including species and parasite count. In addition, Giemsa smear microscopy (GSM) and use of similar Romanowsky stains (RSM) uses only commonly available laboratory infrastructure, and can be done in batches with good throughput. These advantages have made GSM...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Ashraf S, Kao A, Hugo C, et al. Developing standards for malaria microscopy: external competency assessment for malaria microscopists in the Asia-Pacific. Malar J. 2012;24:352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coleman RE, Maneechai N, Rachaphaew N, et al. Comparison of field and expert laboratory microscopy for active surveillance for asymptomatic Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax in western Thailand. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2002;67:141–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Das DK, Mukherjee R, Chakraborty C. Computational microscopic imaging for malaria parasite detection: a systematic review. J Microsc. 2015;260:1–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Delahunt C, Horning MP, Wilson BK, Proctor JL, Hegg MC. Limitations of haemozoin-based diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum using dark-field microscopy. Malar J. 2014;13:147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Eshel Y, Houri-Yafin A, Benkuzari H, et al. Evaluation of the parasight platform for malaria diagnosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2017;55:768–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Kahama-Maro J, D’Acremont V, Mtasiwa D, Genton B, Lengeler C. Low quality of routine microscopy for malaria at different levels of the health system in Dar es Salaam. Malar J. 2011;10:332.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Keiser J, Utzinger J, Premji Z, Yamagata Y, Singer BH. Acridine Orange for malaria diagnosis: its diagnostic performance, its promotion and implementation in Tanzania, and the implications for malaria control. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2002;96:643–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mehanian C, Jaiswal M, Delahunt C, et al. Computer-automated malaria diagnosis and quantitation using convolutional neural networks. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on computer vision workshop (ICCVW); 2017 Oct 22–29; Venice; 2017. pp. 116–25.Google Scholar
  9. Shah J, Mark O, Weltman H, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assays for diagnosing malaria in endemic areas. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0136726.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Tek FB, Dempster AG, Kale I. Computer vision for microscopy diagnosis of malaria. Malar J. 2009;8:153.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. WHO. World malaria report 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.Google Scholar
  12. WHO. Malaria microscopy quality assurance manual – version 2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intellectual Ventures Global Good FundBellevueUSA