ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2017
Improvement in the detection of enteric protozoa from clinical stool samples using the automated urine sediment analyzer sediMAX
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of KU-F40 automated microscope for parasitology: when artificial intelligence meets old school microscopy.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- High-throughput detection of parasites and ova in stool using the fully automatic digital feces analyzer, orienter model fa280.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Is the Medium Still the Message? Culture-Independent Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Infections.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Review
- Automated parasitological diagnosis in clinical microbiology laboratories.Scientific reports · 2021Observational
- Utility of an Automatic Vision-Based Examination System (AVE-562) for the Detection ofAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- Automated Diagnostics: Advances in the Diagnosis of Intestinal Parasitic Infections in Humans and Animals.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Progress in Automated Urinalysis.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Detection of intestinal parasites from fecal samples is routinely performed by direct wet mount examination. This method requires skilled personnel, and it is time consuming. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the usefulness of the newer automated urinary sediment analyser sediMAX 2 for a fast detection of intestinal protozoa in stool samples. A total of 700 consecutively preserved samples consisting of 70 positives and 630 negatives were analyzed. SediMAX 2 takes digital images of each sediment sample, and analysis was conducted using a dilution of stool specimens, allowing determination of typical morphology. Compared to manual microscopy, sediMAX 2 showed sensitivity and specificity of 100 % in the detection of intestinal parasites, as also recently demonstrated for sediMAX 1. However, all clinically important human protozoa were detected using only 15 images for each specimen, compared to 30 images required in sediMAX 1 analysis. Moreover, changing manually the focus, it is possible to carry out a discrimination between morphologically identical Entamoeba complex members, including the pathogenic E. histolytica and the non-pathogenic E. dispar, E. moshkovskii and E. Bangladeshi, from the non-pathogenic Entamoeba coli based on the number of nuclei present in the cells. This study presents sediMAX 2 as an automatic aid to traditional microscopy.
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.