Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27394158›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2016

Molecular detection of common intestinal parasites: a performance evaluation of the BD Max™ Enteric Parasite Panel.

R Batra, E Judd, J Eling, W Newsholme, S D Goldenberg

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

5 authors.

R BatraCentre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, King's College, London and Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, 5th Floor North Wing, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE 17EH, UK.
E JuddViaPath LLP, London, UK.
J ElingHealthcare Inclusion Team, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
W NewsholmeCentre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, King's College, London and Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, 5th Floor North Wing, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE 17EH, UK.
S D GoldenbergCentre for Clinical Infection and Diagnostics Research, King's College, London and Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, 5th Floor North Wing, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE 17EH, UK. Simon.goldenberg@gstt.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement of the BD Max™ Enteric Parasite Panel (EPP) with microscopy for the detection of Giardia duodenalis, Cryptosporidium spp. and Entamoeba histolytica in stool samples. A total of 372 stool samples (partly collected on the basis of positive microscopy and partly unselected, consecutive sample submitted for parasite investigation) were tested with EPP according to manufacturer's instructions and also using microscopy according to standard techniques. Discrepant samples were further tested using PCR by the National Parasitology reference laboratory. Levels of agreement and laboratory turnaround times were measured and compared. Overall, positive and negative percent agreement was high between the two methods. However, microscopy resulted in four false positives and one false negative for G. duodenalis and two false positives for Cryptosporidium. Additionally, microscopy could not differentiate between E. histolytica and Entamoeba dispar. Median laboratory turnaround time was 65 hours for microscopy; results from EPP could be available after four hours. Blastocycstis hominis was detected by microscopy in one sample and would have been missed if only EPP was performed. The EPP was a good alternative to microscopy, detecting a small number of additional positives that were missed by microscopy. The assay is significantly faster than microscopy and allows laboratory workflows to be streamlined. The risk of missing parasites that are not included in the EPP appears to be minimal in the studied population; however, there may be certain patient groups who would benefit from microscopic examination of stools.

Indexed as

CryptosporidiumDiagnostic ErrorsEntamoebaFecesGiardia lambliaHumansIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticMicroscopyMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesTime Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.