Diagnostic technique | Efficacy in Rural/Urban | Advantage | Limitation | Reference | WHO/CDC recommendation |
Microscopy Giemsa or Acridine orange staining | Rural and urban settings | First line of standard diagnostics. Cost effective. | Less sensitive. Drug resistance not detected. | [8] [37] . | WHO recommends prompt diagnosis by microscopy or rapid diagnostic test (RDTs) [76] [77] . |
Immunological test-RDTs | Rural and urban | Ease of use. Rapid results. | Less sensitive in low parasite count. False positive/negative. Drug resistance not detected. | [35] [40] [78] [79] . | WHO recommends prompt diagnosis by microscopy and commercial RDTs in endemic area [76] . |
Serologic test-ELISA | Rural and urban | Rapid detection. More sensitive than microscopy. | False positive, less sensitive. Lab setting needed. RTDs are better evolved immunological technique for POC. | [38] [80] | Not recommended for regular diagnostics. |
Immunofluorescence assay | Urban | High sensitive than microscopy. | Requires lab settings. Not cost effective. Time taking. | [39] . | Not recommended for regular diagnostics. |
DNA based assay-PCR, RT PCR, Multiplex PCR/PCR-LDR, LDR-FMA, LAMP | Urban | High sensitivity and specificity. Drug resistance detection. | Standard lab settings required. Expertise needed. Not cost effective. | [43] [44] [45] [46] . | Not recommended for regular diagnostics. More useful in confirmation of parasite species and drug susceptibility. |