ArticleWorld journal of microbiology & biotechnology2015
Copro prevalence and estimated risk of Entamoeba histolytica in Diarrheic patients at Beni-Suef, Egypt.
Article in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology, 2015. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accurate laboratory diagnosis of human intestinal and extra-intestinal amoebiasis.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2022Review
- Update on laboratory diagnosis of amoebiasis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amoebiasis diagnosis is usually based on microscopy that cannot differentiate pathogenic E. histolytica from morphologically identical non-pathogenic species. 194 fecal samples were collected from diarrheic &/or dysenteric patients and examined for Entamoeba complex microscopically, E. histolytica/E. dispar coproantigen using ICT and E. histolytica coproantigen using Tech lab E. histolytica II ELISA test. Entamoeba complex trophozoites/cysts, E. histolytica/E. dispar coproantigen and E. histolytica coproantigen were detected in 22.2, 14.4 and 3.6 % of samples, respectively. Microscopy and ICT method had limited sensitivity with poor PPV (9.3 and 7.1 %, respectively) and both slightly agree with ELISA test. The prevalence of E. histolytica was low (3.6 %) in studied individuals and was 14 times lower than non-pathogenic amoebae. E. histolytica detection studied individuals was positively associated with mucoid and bloody stool, which makes them disease predictors. E. histolytica fecal ELISA assay for E. histolytica detection surpassed microscopy and E. histolytica/E. dispar ICT assay. This has highlighted the need for practical non-microscopic detection methods that can differentiate between amoeba infections to avoid unnecessary and possibly harmful therapies and to determine the true prevalence and epidemiology of E. histolytica.
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.