Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26217948›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2015

Is PCR the Next Reference Standard for the Diagnosis of Schistosoma in Stool? A Comparison with Microscopy in Senegal and Kenya.

Lynn Meurs, Eric Brienen, Moustapha Mbow, Elizabeth A Ochola, Souleymane Mboup, Diana M S Karanja, W Evan Secor, Katja Polman, Lisette van Lieshout

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.4field-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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Lynn MeursDepartment of Parasitology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Eric BrienenDepartment of Parasitology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Moustapha MbowLaboratory of Bacteriology and Virology, Aristide Le Dantec Teaching Hospital, Dakar, Senegal.
Elizabeth A OcholaCenter for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
Souleymane MboupLaboratory of Bacteriology and Virology, Aristide Le Dantec Teaching Hospital, Dakar, Senegal.
Diana M S KaranjaCenter for Global Health Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Kisumu, Kenya.
W Evan SecorDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Katja PolmanDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Lisette van LieshoutDepartment of Parasitology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Hôpital Aristide Le Dantec · SNInstituut voor Tropische Geneeskunde · BEKenya Medical Research Institute · KELeiden University Medical Center · NLDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current reference test for the detection of S. mansoni in endemic areas is stool microscopy based on one or more Kato-Katz stool smears. However, stool microscopy has several shortcomings that greatly affect the efficacy of current schistosomiasis control programs. A highly specific multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting the Schistosoma internal transcriber-spacer-2 sequence (ITS2) was developed by our group a few years ago, but so far this PCR has been applied mostly on urine samples. Here, we performed more in-depth evaluation of the ITS2 PCR as an alternative method to standard microscopy for the detection and quantification of Schistosoma spp. in stool samples. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsMicroscopy and PCR were performed in a Senegalese community (n = 197) in an area with high S. mansoni transmission and co-occurrence of S. haematobium, and in Kenyan schoolchildren (n = 760) from an area with comparatively low S. mansoni transmission. Despite the differences in Schistosoma endemicity the PCR performed very similarly in both areas; 13-15% more infections were detected by PCR when comparing to microscopy of a single stool sample. Even when 2-3 stool samples were used for microscopy, PCR on one stool sample detected more infections, especially in people with light-intensity infections and in children from low-risk schools. The low prevalence of soil-transmitted helminthiasis in both populations was confirmed by an additional multiplex PCR. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The ITS2-based PCR was more sensitive than standard microscopy in detecting Schistosoma spp. This would be particularly useful for S. mansoni detection in low transmission areas, and post-control settings, and as such improve schistosomiasis control programs, epidemiological research, and quality control of microscopy. Moreover, it can be complemented with other (multiplex real-time) PCRs to detect a wider range of helminths and thus enhance effectiveness of current integrated control and elimination strategies for neglected tropical diseases.

Indexed as

AnimalsFecesHumansKenyaMicroscopyPolymerase Chain ReactionReference StandardsSchistosoma mansoniSchistosomiasis mansoniSenegal

Identifiers

PMID26217948
PMCPMC4517772
OpenAlexW971818716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.