ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2014
Recent advances in clinical parasitology diagnostics.
Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Acute Diarrheal Infections in Adults.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016Guideline
- Parasitology of the twenty-first century: are we moving in the right direction?Journal of medical microbiology · 2025Review
- State-of-the-Art Techniques for Diagnosis of Medical Parasites and Arthropods.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Improvement in the detection of enteric protozoa from clinical stool samples using the automated urine sediment analyzer sediMAXEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
- Diagnosis of neglected tropical diseases among patients with persistent digestive disorders (diarrhoea and/or abdominal pain ≥14 days): Pierrea multi-country, prospective, non-experimental case-control study.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microscopy has several limitations in the diagnosis of parasitic infection. New technologies have emerged to address some of these limitations. We review recent advances in three key areas. The detection of enteric protozoa is a commonly requested test, particularly with increasing travel to and migration from endemic countries. Microscopy is slow and labor intensive and requires a high level of technical expertise. It also lacks both sensitivity and specificity. Recently developed nucleic acid amplification tests are automated and rapid and show superior accuracy. Proteomics shows promise for both the diagnosis of infections where parasite detection is difficult and the potential for accurate assessment of cure in these cases. Finally, rapid and simple diagnostic tests suitable for use in low-resource settings are now allowing for improved study and control of infection in endemic regions.
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.