We compared the performance of Paracheck-Pf(R), a new and cheap rapid malar
ia test, with ICT-Pf/Pv(R) and microscopy in two malaria surveys in Thai vi
llages on the Thai-Burmese border. The specificity, sensitivity, predictive
positive and negative values of the Paracheck-Pf(R) and ICT-Pf(R) tests we
re calculated taking microscopy results as the gold standard. The 294 ICT-P
f/Pv tests resulted in two invalid (no control line) and II doubtful result
s. Both the ICT-Pf/Pv(R) and Paracheck-Pf(R) rests reliably detected P. fal
ciparum infections. However, Paracheck-Pf(R) failed to detect three P. falc
iparum cases and likewise, ICT-Pf/Pv(R) failed to detect the same three cas
es and an additional four cases. These seven cases were detected by microsc
opy and had a parasitaemia under 150 parasites/mul. At a cost of c. US $1.0
0, the Paracheck-Pf(R) test, based on the detection of the P. falciparum sp
ecific HRP-2 protein, is a reliable, easy to use and affordable tool for th
e diagnosis of P. falciparum malaria.