ArticleVeterinary world2016
Comparison of different diagnostic techniques for the detection of cryptosporidiosis in bovines.
Article in Veterinary world, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mouse Models for Use in Cryptosporidium Infection Studies, Quantification of Parasite Burden Using Flow Cytometry, qPCR and Histopathology, and Confocal Imaging of Oocysts.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Multiplex one-step RT-qPCR assays for simultaneous detection of BRV, BCoV,Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Molecular detection ofOpen veterinary journal · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Toluidine Blue Stain for Direct Wet Mount Detection ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The profile of inflammatory factors in dairy calves withVeterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2022Article
- Comparative evaluation of various diagnostic techniques for detection ofIranian journal of veterinary research · 2022Article
- Cryptosporidiosis and Giardiasis in Buffaloes (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Review
- Detection ofPorcine health management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAim of the present study was to compare different methods, viz., Sheather's sugar flotation (SSF), Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN), Kinyoun's acid-fast method (KAF), safranin-methylene blue staining (SMB), and negative staining techniques such as nigrosin staining, light green staining, and malachite green staining for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts in bovines. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 455 fecal samples from bovines were collected from private, government farms and from the clinical cases presented to Department of Medicine, Veterinary College, Bengaluru. They were subjected for SSF, ZN, KAF, SMB and negative staining methods.
resultsOut of 455 animal fecal samples screened 5.71% were found positive for Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts. The species were identified as Cryptosporidium parvum in calves and Cryptosporidium andersoni in adults based on the morphological characterization and micrometry of the oocysts.
conclusionsOf all the techniques, fecal flotation with sheather's was found to be more specific and sensitive method for the detection of Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts. Among the conventional staining methods, the SMB gives better differentiation between oocysts and yeast. Among the three negative staining methods, malachite green was found sensitive over the other methods.
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.