Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18574594›Full record

ReviewParasitology research2008

The detection and quantification of a digenean infection in the snail host with special emphasis on Fasciola sp.

Yannick Caron, Daniel Rondelaud, Bertrand Losson

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Parasitology research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. ZoonoticInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Potential Hybridization ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

3 authors.

Yannick CaronFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Liège, 20 Boulevard de Colonster, B-43a, 4000 Liège, Belgium. ycaron@ulg.ac.be
Daniel Rondelaud
Bertrand Losson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, ten methods used to study digenean infections in their intermediate hosts were compared to determine which one should be used either in the field or in the lab to establish the prevalence and intensity of infections in snails. Snail crushing and snail dissection allow quick establishing of prevalence in natural or experimental infections, whereas histology is considered as the most accurate approach to assess the intensity of infection. The follow-up of cercarial shedding only gave an idea on cercarial production. Among recently developed techniques, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) brings the most accurate information and shows high sensitivity and specificity levels when compared to blotting techniques. The easiness and relatively low cost of the basic PCR protocol make it interesting to investigate the epidemiology of the liver fluke in a lab with limited financial resources. Nevertheless, if this technique allows a relatively good estimation of the prevalence, information concerning the intensity of infection is best obtained through real time PCR. However, at the time being this technique is too expensive to be used routinely in the field. The choice between classical or new techniques is usually based on a compromise, as each technique has its advantages and drawbacks.

Indexed as

AnimalsFasciolaParasitologyPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificitySnailsTrematoda

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.