ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2015
Significance of Diagnosing Parasitic Infestation in Evaluation of Unexplained Eosinophilia.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06265870 (Comparison of Outcome Between Specific Anthelminthic Treatment According to Test Results and Empirical Anthelminthic Treatment in Eosinophilic Patient), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of Outcome Between Specific Anthelminthic Treatment According to Test Results and Empirical Anthelminthic Treatment in Eosinophilic Patient
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical characteristics and pathogen spectra of parasitic infections in a tertiary hospital of Shanghai: A 13-year retrospective study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Clinico-epidemiological spectrum of strongyloidiasis in India: Review of 166 cases.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Review
- Immune Profile of Honduran Schoolchildren with Intestinal Parasites: The Skewed Response against Geohelminths.Journal of parasitology research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation of unexplained eosinophilia in an asymptomatic individual has always been a diagnostic challenge and requires understanding about a wide range of probable causative agents. Helminthic infestation and schistosomiasis are the main parasitic causes of eosinophilia. Therefore, the availability of simple and accurate diagnostic tests for detection of parasitic infections can prove to be valuable in early diagnosis and solving the mystery of unexplained eosinophilia. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the present study we attempt to find an association between relative eosinophilia and parasitic infections and also to find the parasites responsible for eosinophilia in a substantial number of cases. A retrospective study for the presence of eosinophilia was done on 621 cases positive for parasitic infestation.
resultsAmong a total of 621 cases of parasitic infestation only 66 (10.6%) cases were found to have relative eosinophilia. The parasites found to be responsible for eosinophilia were Trichuris trichiura, Ascaris lumbricoides, Strongyloides stercoralis, filarial worm and hook worm.
conclusionFrom the study it is concluded that eosinophilia is not a universal finding in cases with parasitic infestation. Although presence of eosinophilia can serve as one of the many diagnostic clues to look for the presence of helminthic infestation if other non-infectious causes of eosinophilia are ruled out.
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.