ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2016
Assessment of microscopic and molecular tools for the diagnosis and follow-up of cryptosporidiosis in patients at risk.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transitioning from microscopy to PCR for protozoa in Norway - Impact on detection of protozoa and helminths: A register study.Epidemiology and infection · 2025Article
- Multicenter comparative study of Enterocytozoon bieneusi DNA extraction methods from stool samples, and mechanical pretreatment protocols evaluation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison Study of Four Extraction Methods Combined with PCR and LAMP for FelinePathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Portable on-chip colorimetric biosensing platform integrated with a smartphone for label/PCR-free detection of Cryptosporidium RNA.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comparative Study of Eleven Mechanical Pretreatment Protocols forMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Multicenter Comparative Study of SixMicroorganisms · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cryptosporidiosis is an important though underreported public health concern. Molecular tools might be helpful in improving its diagnosis. In this study, ZR Fecal DNA MiniPrep™ Kit (ZR) and NucliSens® easyMAG® (EM) were compared using four Cryptosporidium-seeded feces and 29 Cryptosporidium-positive stools. Thereafter, ZR was selected for prospective evaluation of Cryptosporidium detection by 18S rDNA and LAXER quantitative PCR (qPCR) in 69 stools from 56 patients after Cryptosporidium detection by glycerin, modified Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) and auramine-phenol (AP) stainings. The combination of any of the two extraction methods with 18S qPCR yielded adequate detection of Cryptosporidium in seeded stools, but the ZR kit showed the best performance. All 29 Cryptosporidium-positive samples were positive with 18S qPCR, after both ZR and EM extraction. However, false-negative results were found with LAXER qPCR or nested PCR. Cryptosporidiosis was diagnosed in 7/56 patients. All the microscopic methods enabled the initial diagnosis, but Cryptosporidium was detected in 12, 13, and 14 samples from these seven patients after glycerin, ZN, and AP staining respectively. Among these samples, 14 and 12 were positive with 18S and LAXER qPCR respectively. In two patients, Cryptosporidium DNA loads were found to be correlated with clinical evolution. Although little known, glycerin is a sensitive method for the initial detection of Cryptosporidium. When combined with 18S qPCR, ZR extraction, which had not been evaluated so far for Cryptosporidium, was an accurate tool for detecting Cryptosporidium and estimating the oocyst shedding in the course of infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26610340What 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.