ArticleParasitology research2017
A comparison of two methods for quantifying parasitic nematode fecundity.
Article in Parasitology research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A genome-scale metabolic model of parasitic whipworm.Nature communications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate measures of nematode fecundity can provide important information for investigating parasite life history evolution, transmission potential, and effects on host health. Understanding differences among fecundity assessment protocols and standardizing methods, where possible, will enable comparisons across different studies and host and parasite species and systems. Using the trichostrongyle nematode Cooperia fuelleborni isolated from wild African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), we compared egg recovery and enumeration between two methods for measuring the fecundity of female worms. The first method, in utero egg count, involves visual enumeration of the eggs via microscopic inspection of the uterine system. The second method, ex utero egg count, involves dissolving the same specimens from above in a sodium chloride solution to release the eggs from the female's uterus, then enumeration under an inverted microscope. On average, the ex utero method resulted in 34% more eggs than the in utero method. However, results indicate that the two methods used to quantify parasitic nematode fecundity are highly correlated. Thus, while both methods are viable options for estimating relative nematode fecundity, we recommend caution in undertaking comparative studies that utilize egg count data collected using different 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.