Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24696439›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2014

Molecular testing for clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations of intestinal parasitic infections.

Jaco J Verweij, C Rune Stensvold

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

106 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Development and validation of the AI-predictive ParaScoutEmerging microbes & infections · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Prevalence of Soil-Transmitted Helminths in Long-Tailed Macaques (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Jaco J VerweijLaboratory for Medical Microbiology and Immunology, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
C Rune Stensvold

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past few decades, nucleic acid-based methods have been developed for the diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections. Advantages of nucleic acid-based methods are numerous; typically, these include increased sensitivity and specificity and simpler standardization of diagnostic procedures. DNA samples can also be stored and used for genetic characterization and molecular typing, providing a valuable tool for surveys and surveillance studies. A variety of technologies have been applied, and some specific and general pitfalls and limitations have been identified. This review provides an overview of the multitude of methods that have been reported for the detection of intestinal parasites and offers some guidance in applying these methods in the clinical laboratory and in epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMolecular EpidemiologyParasitesParasitology

Identifiers

PMID24696439
PMCPMC3993103

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.