ArticleJournal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology2016
Comparison of microscopic and immunoassay examination in the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa of humans in Mansoura, Egypt.
Article in Journal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of a Community Pharmacy-Led Deworming-Related Counselling Service: An Interventional Study in a Low-to-Middle Income Country.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Systematic Review of Diagnostic Approaches for Human Giardiasis: Unveiling Optimal Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Microscopy detection and molecular characterisation ofFrontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Prevalence of Entamoeba histolytica and other enteral parasitic diseases in the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. A cross-sectional study.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protozoal diseases are prevalent globally and especially in developing countries that have relatively lower socioeconomic populations such as Egypt. Direct microscopic examination (DME) is used for the detection and identification of protozoa but lacks sufficient reliability, and thus may be detrimental in obtaining accurate diagnostic or epidemiological data. In this study, we determine the prevalence of infections by Giardia intestinalis, Cryptosporidium sp., and Entamoeba histolytica in humans in Egypt. Furthermore, we determine the reliability of DME in determining infections caused by these protozoa and compare the results to enzyme linked Immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Our results indicate that the prevalence of giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis, and entamoebiasis is 38, 22, and 16 %, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of DME for detection of G. intestinalis is 45 and 99 %, for Cryptosporidium 66 and 99 %, and for Entamoeba 45 and 100 %, respectively. Our findings demonstrate that ELISA is more reliable for diagnostic and epidemiologic study purposes.
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.