Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21533168›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Confocal laser scanning microscopy for detection of Schistosoma mansoni eggs in the gut of mice.

Martha Charlotte Holtfreter, Oliver Stachs, Maria Reichard, Micha Loebermann, Rudolf Friedrich Guthoff, Emil Christian Reisinger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martha Charlotte HoltfreterDivision of Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Oliver Stachs
Maria Reichard
Micha Loebermann
Rudolf Friedrich Guthoff
Emil Christian Reisinger
University of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe gold standard for diagnosing Schistosoma mansoni infections is the detection of eggs from stool or biopsy specimens. The viability of collected eggs can be tested by the miracidium hatching procedure. Direct detection methods are often limited in patients with light or early infections, whereas serological tests and PCR methods fail to differentiate between an inactive and persistent infection and between schistosomal species. Recently, confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) has been introduced as a diagnostic tool in several fields of medicine. In this study we evaluated CLSM for the detection of viable eggs of S. mansoni directly within the gut of infected mice. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsThe confocal laser scanning microscope used in this study is based on the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II scanning laser system in combination with the Rostock Cornea Module (image modality 1) or a rigid endoscope (image modality 2). Colon sections of five infected mice were examined with image modalities 1 and 2 for schistosomal eggs. Afterwards a biopsy specimen was taken from each colon section and examined by bright-field microscopy. Visualised eggs were counted and classified in terms of viability status. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We were able to show that CLSM visualises eggs directly within the gut and permits discrimination of schistosomal species and determination of egg viability. Thus, CLSM may be a suitable non-invasive tool for the diagnosis of schistosomiasis in humans.

Indexed as

OvumAnimalsColonFemaleMiceMicroscopy, ConfocalSchistosoma mansoni

Identifiers

PMID21533168
PMCPMC3078923
OpenAlexW2081178274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.