Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15243803›Full record

ArticleParasitology research2004

The comparative development of Echinostoma caproni (Trematoda: Echinostomatidae) adults in experimentally infected hamsters and rats.

Rafael Toledo, Ana Espert, Inés Carpena, Carla Muñoz-Antoli, Bernard Fried, José-Guillermo Esteban

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Parasitology research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Susceptibility of mice to primaryFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Foodborne intestinal flukes in Southeast Asia.The Korean journal of parasitology · 2009
    Review
  14. Review
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

6 authors.

Rafael ToledoDepartamento de Parasitología, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Valencia, Av. Vicente Andrés Estellés s/n, 46100, Burjassot-Valencia, Spain. rafael.toledo@uv.es
Ana Espert
Inés Carpena
Carla Muñoz-Antoli
Bernard Fried
José-Guillermo Esteban

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the development of Echinostoma caproni (Trematoda: Echinostomatidae) adults in two host species displaying different degrees of compatibility with this parasite. For this purpose, the variability in the worm recovery, egg output, and morphology of E. caproni adults during the course of experimental infections in hamsters and rats was analyzed. Student's t-tests and two-factor ANOVA analysis with the time post-infection and the host species as independent variables, and Bonferroni t-tests as post hoc analysis were used for the study. Worm recovery and egg output were host species dependent. The values were significantly higher in the worms established in hamsters than those in rats. The oral sucker area, pre-pharynx length, and pharynx area were the most conservative features, and no significant variability related to the host species was detected. In contrast, body area, collar width, esophagus length, cirrus sac area, ventral sucker area, ovarian area and anterior and posterior testicular areas were significantly higher in those worms collected from hamsters. Moreover, significant worm age-host species interactions were found for body area, ovarian area, ventral sucker area, and anterior and posterior testicular areas.

Indexed as

AnimalsCricetinaeEchinostomaEchinostomiasisFemaleMaleMesocricetusParasite Egg CountRatsRats, WistarSpecies SpecificityTime Factors

Identifiers

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.