What does a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 85% mean for a new rapid malaria test?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: November 5, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Understanding Sensitivity and Specificity of a Malaria Rapid Test

The correct answer is (a): A sensitivity of 95% means the test correctly identifies 95% of diseased individuals (those who actually have malaria), while a specificity of 85% means the test correctly identifies 85% of non-diseased individuals (those who do not have malaria).

Definitions in Practical Terms

Sensitivity (95%)

  • Sensitivity measures the test's ability to detect disease when it is present 1
  • With 95% sensitivity, if 100 people truly have malaria, this test will correctly identify 95 of them as positive 2
  • The remaining 5 people with malaria will receive false negative results (the test misses them) 1
  • High sensitivity is crucial for ruling out disease - a negative result on a highly sensitive test makes disease very unlikely 3

Specificity (85%)

  • Specificity measures the test's ability to correctly identify people without disease 1
  • With 85% specificity, if 100 people do not have malaria, this test will correctly identify 85 of them as negative 2
  • The remaining 15 people without malaria will receive false positive results 1
  • High specificity is important for ruling in disease - a positive result on a highly specific test strongly suggests disease is present 3

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect

  • Option B is incorrect: This describes specificity, not sensitivity. The 95% figure refers to diseased individuals, not non-diseased 2
  • Option C is incorrect: This reverses the numbers - 85% is the specificity (non-diseased identification), not sensitivity 2
  • Option D is incorrect: This describes positive predictive value (PPV), which depends on disease prevalence in the population, not just the test's sensitivity and specificity 2, 3

Clinical Context for Malaria Testing

This test's performance (95% sensitivity, 85% specificity) falls within the range reported for malaria RDTs, which show sensitivity for P. falciparum ranging from 67.9% to 100% and specificity between 93.1% and 100% 1

Important Clinical Implications

  • The 95% sensitivity is excellent - this test will catch nearly all malaria cases, making it valuable for screening 3, 4
  • The 85% specificity is moderate - approximately 15% of people without malaria will test positive, leading to potential overtreatment 1, 5
  • In low prevalence settings (such as returned travelers), the relatively lower specificity means many positive results will be false positives, requiring confirmatory microscopy 1, 3
  • In high prevalence settings, the high sensitivity ensures few cases are missed, but false positives remain a concern 5

Common Pitfalls

  • False negatives can occur with non-falciparum species, low parasitemia, or P. falciparum strains with gene deletions despite high sensitivity 1, 3
  • False positives may result from rheumatoid factor, anti-nuclear antibodies, or persistent antigens from previous infections 1, 3
  • Always confirm positive RDT results with microscopy for species identification and parasitemia quantification 2, 3

References

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Malaria Diagnosis Guidelines

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Efficacy of Rapid Detection Methods for Malaria

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Research

Diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic tests versus blood smears for malaria in US clinical practice.

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2009

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.