Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25522844›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2014

A semi-automated magnetic capture probe based DNA extraction and real-time PCR method applied in the Swedish surveillance of Echinococcus multilocularis in red fox (Vulpes vulpes) faecal samples.

Mats Isaksson, Åsa Hagström, Maria Teresa Armua-Fernandez, Helene Wahlström, Erik Olof Ågren, Andrea Miller, Anders Holmberg, Morten Lukacs, Adriano Casulli, Peter Deplazes and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Food contamination byFood and waterborne parasitology · 2026
    Article
  2. How can environmental fecal sampling supportFood and waterborne parasitology · 2026
    Article
  3. Annual assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Annual assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    Article
  6. Typing ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Annual assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Annual assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  11. Annual assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Annual assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Annual assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2021
    Article
  17. Comparison of Two DNA Extraction Methods and Two PCRs for Detection ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Annual assessment ofEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Mats IsakssonDepartment of Virology Immunobiology and Parasitology, National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. mats.isaksson@sva.se.
Åsa HagströmDepartment of Virology Immunobiology and Parasitology, National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. asa.hagstrom@sva.se.
Maria Teresa Armua-FernandezInstitute of Parasitology, Vetsuisse and Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. mtarmua@vetparas.uzh.ch.
Helene WahlströmDepartment of Epidemiology, National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. helene.wahlstrom@sva.se.
Erik Olof ÅgrenDepartment of Pathology and Wildlife Diseases, National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. erik.agren@sva.se.
Andrea MillerDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Veterinary Public Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. andrea.miller@slu.se.
Anders HolmbergPrecision System Science, Stockholm, Sweden. anders.holmberg@pssbio.com.
Morten LukacsPrecision System Science, Stockholm, Sweden. morten.lukacs@pssbio.com.
Adriano CasulliDepartment of Infectious, Parasitic and Immunomediated Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy. adriano.casulli@iss.it.
Peter DeplazesInstitute of Parasitology, Vetsuisse and Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. deplazesp@access.uzh.ch.
Mikael JuremalmDepartment of Virology Immunobiology and Parasitology, National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. mikael.juremalm@sva.se.
Swedish Veterinary Agency · SEUniversity of Zurich · CHIstituto Superiore di Sanità · ITSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing the first finding of Echinococcus multilocularis in Sweden in 2011, 2985 red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) were analysed by the segmental sedimentation and counting technique. This is a labour intensive method and requires handling of the whole carcass of the fox, resulting in a costly analysis. In an effort to reduce the cost of labour and sample handling, an alternative method has been developed. The method is sensitive and partially automated for detection of E. multilocularis in faecal samples. The method has been used in the Swedish E. multilocularis monitoring program for 2012-2013 on more than 2000 faecal samples.

methodsWe describe a new semi-automated magnetic capture probe DNA extraction method and real time hydrolysis probe polymerase chain reaction assay (MC-PCR) for the detection of E. multilocularis DNA in faecal samples from red fox. The diagnostic sensitivity was determined by validating the new method against the sedimentation and counting technique in fox samples collected in Switzerland where E. multilocularis is highly endemic.

resultsOf 177 foxes analysed by the sedimentation and counting technique, E. multilocularis was detected in 93 animals. Eighty-two (88%, 95% C.I 79.8-93.9) of these were positive in the MC-PCR. In foxes with more than 100 worms, the MC-PCR was positive in 44 out of 46 (95.7%) cases. The two MC-PCR negative samples originated from foxes with only immature E. multilocularis worms. In foxes with 100 worms or less, (n = 47), 38 (80.9%) were positive in the MC-PCR. The diagnostic specificity of the MC-PCR was evaluated using fox scats collected within the Swedish screening. Of 2158 samples analysed, two were positive. This implies that the specificity is at least 99.9% (C.I. = 99.7-100).

conclusionsThe MC-PCR proved to have a high sensitivity and a very high specificity. The test is partially automated but also possible to perform manually if desired. The test is well suited for nationwide E. multilocularis surveillance programs where sampling of fox scats is done to reduce the costs for sampling and where a test with a high sensitivity and a very high specificity is needed.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNA, HelminthEchinococcosisEchinococcus multilocularisEpidemiological MonitoringFoxesMagneticsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificitySwedenDNA, Helminth

Identifiers

PMID25522844
PMCPMC4282741
OpenAlexW2125679359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.