ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Multisite clinical evaluation of a rapid test for Entamoeba histolytica in stool.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate laboratory diagnosis of human intestinal and extra-intestinal amoebiasis.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2022Review
- Commercial Simplex and Multiplex PCR Assays for the Detection of Intestinal ParasitesMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- A comparative study of parasites in three latrines from Medieval and Renaissance Brussels, Belgium (14th-17th centuries).Parasitology · 2020Article
- Utility of the Rapid Antigen Detection Test E. histolytica Quik Chek for the Diagnosis of Entamoeba histolytica Infection in Nonendemic Situations.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- Update on laboratory diagnosis of amoebiasis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Review
- Development and initial evaluation of a lateral flow dipstick test for antigen detection of Entamoeba histolytica in stool sample.Pathogens and global health · 2017Article
- Enhancing Protein Capture Using a Combination of Nanoyeast Single-Chain Fragment Affinity Reagents and Alternating Current Electrohydrodynamic Forces.Analytical chemistry · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid point-of-care detection of enteric protozoa in diarrheal stool is desirable in clinical and research settings to efficiently determine the etiology of diarrhea. We analyzed the ability of the third-generation E. histolytica Quik Chek assay developed by Techlab to detect amebic antigens in fecal samples collected from independent study populations in South Africa and Bangladesh. We compared the performance of this recently released rapid test to that of the commercially available ProSpecT Entamoeba histolytica microplate assay from Remel and the E. histolytica II enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) from Techlab, using real-time and nested-PCR for Entamoeba species to resolve any discrepant results. After discrepant resolution, The E. histolytica Quik Chek assay exhibited sensitivity and specificity compared to the E. histolytica II ELISA of 98.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.9% to 99.8%) and 100% (95% CI, 99.0% to 100%), respectively. Compared to the ProSpecT microplate assay, the E. histolytica Quik Chek (Quik Chek) assay exhibited 97.0% sensitivity (95% CI, 91.5% to 99.4%) and 100% specificity (95% CI, 99.0% to 100%). Our results indicate that the Quik Chek is a robust assay for the specific detection of E. histolytica trophozoites in unfixed frozen clinical stool samples.
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.