ArticleJundishapur journal of microbiology2014
Immunofluorescence assay and PCR analysis of cryptosporidium oocysts and species from human feacal specimens.
Article in Jundishapur journal of microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of four diagnostic techniques forQatar medical journal · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of various diagnostic techniques for detection ofIranian journal of veterinary research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCryptosporidium spp. is a widespread protozoan parasite involving humans and animals.
objectivesThis study was carried out to evaluate the immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and PCR results for more accurate diagnosis of faecal specimens. PATIENTS AND
methodsForty six faecal human specimens of Cryptosporidium oocysts were examined by PCR and IFA in Calgary, Canada. In statistical analysis, sensitivity and positive predictive value were detected by IFA.
resultsAmong 46 faecal samples, 9 (19.6%) were IFA-positive and 10 (21.7%) PCR-positive. Faecal smears of both PCR- and IFA-positive shown that the reproducibility was 90.9% for PCR-DNA and 81.8% for IFA. In Our findings, PCR -DNA showed that diagnosis cryptosporidiosis 2.1% was more sensitive than IFA. Two different oocysts sizes were visualized by IF microscopy which belonged to different species. Furthermore, PCR analysis with primers against the 18S rRNA gene indicated two genotypes of C. hominis and C. parvum, 500-650 base pairs (bp). In this study, the golden standard was the PCR. In statistical analyses, IFA had positive predictive value (PPV) of 81.8% with 81.8% sensitivity, whereas negative predictive value (NPV) was 1% with 0.97% specificity.
conclusionsPCR showed more sensitivity than IFA for tracking Cryptosporidium oocysts as well as detection of species in faecal human specimens.
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.