Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12517854›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2003

Detection and differentiation of Entamoeba histolytica and Entamoeba dispar isolates in clinical samples by PCR and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Patrick Gonin, Louise Trudel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. The history of entamoebiasis.Parasitology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Development of a salivary IgA detection method for accurate diagnosis of amebiasis.Journal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology · 2022
    Article
  6. The Epidemiology ofMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Genetic diversity ofJournal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology · 2022
    Article
  9. Accurate laboratory diagnosis of human intestinal and extra-intestinal amoebiasis.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Parasitic Infections of the Gastrointestinal Track and Liver.Gastroenterology clinics of North America · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Tropical medicine and health · 2020
    Review
  16. Update on laboratory diagnosis of amoebiasis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Patrick GoninInstitut national de santé publique du Québec, Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada H9X 3R5. gonin@genethon.fr
Louise Trudel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differential diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica (pathogenic) and Entamoeba dispar (nonpathogenic), which are two morphologically identical species of amebae, is essential both for treatment decision and public health knowledge. The study reported here was designed to choose a reference differentiation technique. Stool samples (n = 95) were tested by microscopy, TechLab enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), and an in-house PCR. The target for the PCR amplification was a small region (135 bp) of the SSU rRNA selected to increase the sensitivity of the test. Sixty-eight specimens tested positive by PCR: 2 for E. histolytica and 66 for E. dispar. For detection of E. dispar, ELISA performance was lower than that of microscopy in this reference context, while PCR was much more sensitive than microscopy. Given the low proportion of E. histolytica cases, test performance for this species is difficult to assess. However, for differentiation, PCR performed well on simulated samples, while ELISA gave a discordant result for one of the two samples PCR positive for E. histolytica during the study. This report also confirms that E. dispar infection is significantly higher among travelers and underlines the possibility of acquiring E. histolytica infection in regions that are not areas of endemicity. Because of its lower sensitivity, the interest of ELISA for Entamoeba detection and differentiation in stools seems questionable in nontropical regions. On the other hand, results suggest that PCR should be useful as a reference test for sensitive differentiation of both species and to contribute to physicians' decision in treatment of E. histolytica- or E. dispar-infected patients.

Indexed as

AnimalsEntamoeba histolyticaEntamoebiasisEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFecesHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionReagent Kits, DiagnosticReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID12517854
PMCPMC149615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.