Comparison of parasitological techniques for the diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections in patients with presumptive malabsorption

Comparison of parasitological techniques for the diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections in... Intestinal parasitic infections still remain a public health problem, overall in tropical and subtropical regions. Frequently, patients with malabsorption syndrome can be infected with intestinal parasites, independent that they could be the etiological agents. To compare three coproparasitological techniques Paratest®, Ritchie and direct wet mount for the diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections in patients with suspected malabsorption syndrome. A descriptive cross sectional survey was carried out in 82 patients with presumptive symptoms of intestinal malabsorption. Three consecutive stool samples were collected from every patient and they were analyzed by three coproparasitological techniques. The degree of agreement was almost perfect when all parasitological techniques were compared for all protozoan infections. Nevertheless, the agreement between Paratest® and Ritchie’s methods was slightly lower because this last method was superior for intestinal infections with commensals. The technique of Ritchie showed 100% of sensitivity for protozoa infections in general. However, the direct wet mount and the Paratest®, showed lower sensitivity. When all techniques were compared only for infections with no pathogenic protozoa, the Paratest® had the lowest sensitivity, and less predictive value for negatives. Ritchie’s method showed a higher superiority than Paratest® for the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa infections in this group of patients. We would recommend the evaluation of new techniques in local conditions before to decide the introduction in the public health network of laboratories. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Parasitic Diseases Springer Journals

Comparison of parasitological techniques for the diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections in patients with presumptive malabsorption

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/comparison-of-parasitological-techniques-for-the-diagnosis-of-o0ztLByqfh
Publisher
Springer India
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Indian Society for Parasitology
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Infectious Diseases; Health Promotion and Disease Prevention; Medicine/Public Health, general
ISSN
0971-7196
eISSN
0975-0703
D.O.I.
10.1007/s12639-016-0876-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Intestinal parasitic infections still remain a public health problem, overall in tropical and subtropical regions. Frequently, patients with malabsorption syndrome can be infected with intestinal parasites, independent that they could be the etiological agents. To compare three coproparasitological techniques Paratest®, Ritchie and direct wet mount for the diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections in patients with suspected malabsorption syndrome. A descriptive cross sectional survey was carried out in 82 patients with presumptive symptoms of intestinal malabsorption. Three consecutive stool samples were collected from every patient and they were analyzed by three coproparasitological techniques. The degree of agreement was almost perfect when all parasitological techniques were compared for all protozoan infections. Nevertheless, the agreement between Paratest® and Ritchie’s methods was slightly lower because this last method was superior for intestinal infections with commensals. The technique of Ritchie showed 100% of sensitivity for protozoa infections in general. However, the direct wet mount and the Paratest®, showed lower sensitivity. When all techniques were compared only for infections with no pathogenic protozoa, the Paratest® had the lowest sensitivity, and less predictive value for negatives. Ritchie’s method showed a higher superiority than Paratest® for the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa infections in this group of patients. We would recommend the evaluation of new techniques in local conditions before to decide the introduction in the public health network of laboratories.

Journal

Journal of Parasitic DiseasesSpringer Journals

Published: Jan 18, 2017

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off