ArticleParasitology research2013
What you get is what they have? Detectability of intestinal parasites in reptiles using faeces.
Article in Parasitology research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Phylogenetic Assessment of Nematodes (Oxyuroidea: Pharyngodonidae) Infecting Moroccan Lizards.Helminthologia · 2022Article
- New host and locality records of helminths' infection of seven lizards from Morocco.Parasitology research · 2022Article
- Automatic identification of intestinal parasites in reptiles using microscopic stool images and convolutional neural networks.PloS one · 2022Article
- Determinants of prevalence and co-infestation by ecto- and endoparasites in the Atlas day gecko, Quedenfeldtia trachyblepharus, an endemic species of Morocco.Parasitology research · 2021Article
- First multicenter coprological survey on helminth parasite communities of free-living loggerhead sea turtlesInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2020Article
- Characterization of ecto- and endoparasite communities of wild Mediterranean teleosts by a metabarcoding approach.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Parasitological analyses are often based on invasive methodologies, involving host sacrifice, raising ethical and conservation issues. However, alternative non-invasive approaches may not be always applicable due to the location of the parasite in the host tissue or the quality and reliability of the non-invasive sample per se. In this study, we compare the differences in detectability of intestinal parasites in reptiles using the classical invasive approach (intestine dissection), versus a non-invasive procedure (faecal examination), collected from the same individual host. Our results showed significantly lower detectability of helminths in faeces versus the intestine. Moreover, the number of parasites found in faeces was not explained either by the intensities found in the respective intestine or by the host identity. Several factors may explain the lack of association between the two types of samples, but more importantly, our results highlight the randomness of the presence of parasites in faeces. Even if it is not recommended that comparative studies of either parasite abundance or parasite communities be conducted on the basis of faecal samples, there are other types of studies (i.e. genetic) that can be performed with this source of information, thus avoiding the sacrifice of the host. Due to their wide spectrum of life stages and localization in the host tissue, parasites are challenging candidates for non-invasive sampling and consequently, parasitological methodologies should be carefully selected according to the objective of the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.