Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28567559›Full record

ArticleParasitology research2017

Diagnosis of canine Echinococcus multilocularis infections by copro-DNA tests: comparison of DNA extraction techniques and evaluation of diagnostic deworming.

Takao Irie, Takuya Ito, Hirokazu Kouguchi, Kimiaki Yamano, Kohji Uraguchi, Kinpei Yagi, Nariaki Nonaka

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patterns of intestinal parasite prevalence in brown bears (International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2025
    Article
  2. Case report:Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparison of Two DNA Extraction Methods and Two PCRs for Detection ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Takao IrieMedical Zoology Group, Department of Infectious Diseases, Hokkaido Institute of Public Health, North 19, West 12, Kitaku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-0819, Japan. tkirie@iph.pref.hokkaido.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8733-0832
Takuya ItoMedical Zoology Group, Department of Infectious Diseases, Hokkaido Institute of Public Health, North 19, West 12, Kitaku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-0819, Japan.
Hirokazu KouguchiMedical Zoology Group, Department of Infectious Diseases, Hokkaido Institute of Public Health, North 19, West 12, Kitaku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-0819, Japan.
Kimiaki YamanoMedical Zoology Group, Department of Infectious Diseases, Hokkaido Institute of Public Health, North 19, West 12, Kitaku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-0819, Japan.
Kohji UraguchiMedical Zoology Group, Department of Infectious Diseases, Hokkaido Institute of Public Health, North 19, West 12, Kitaku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-0819, Japan.
Kinpei YagiMedical Zoology Group, Department of Infectious Diseases, Hokkaido Institute of Public Health, North 19, West 12, Kitaku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-0819, Japan.
Nariaki NonakaLaboratory of Veterinary Parasitic Diseases, Department of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, 1-1 Gakuen-Kibanadai-Nishi, Miyazaki, Miyazaki, 889-2192, Japan.
Hokkaido Institute of Public Health · JPUniversity of Miyazaki · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of copro-DNA detection methods for the diagnosis of canine Echinococcus multilocularis infection was evaluated with a focus on DNA extraction techniques: two commercial kits and a modified alkaline-sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) technique. Dog feces (0.2 g) mixed with a protoscolex or with 1 or 10 eggs of E. multilocularis were subjected to DNA detection following extraction by these methods. DNA was extracted from all protoscolex samples by all methods, but success for samples with eggs depended on extraction technique with the modified technique showing success on all samples. Following experimental infection of dogs, copro-DNA was successfully extracted from fecal samples (0.2 g) of dogs in the patent period by all methods. In the prepatent period, PCR testing of feces subsamples (0.2 g) extracted by each technique was positive at a rate of 79.6-94.4%. Extraction by the modified technique with fecal samples of over 1 g showed detection of copro-DNA in all samples in both the patent and prepatent periods, and it produced reproducible detection in the addition recovery test using feces from 72 different domestic dogs. As copro-DNA was detected for at least 1 day following deworming with administration of anthelmintic drugs in experimentally infected dogs, diagnostic deworming might be useful for clinical examination. Using the present detection method can provide quick and accurate diagnosis of canine E. multilocularis infection, which with prompt management and treatment of infected dogs can prevent pet owners from becoming infected and prevent echinococcosis from spreading into non-endemic areas.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnthelminticsDNA, HelminthDog DiseasesDogsEchinococcosisEchinococcus multilocularisFecesFemaleMalePolymerase Chain ReactionAnthelminticsDNA, HelminthCanine Echinococcus multilocularis infectionCopro-DNA testDiagnostic dewormingPrepatent infection

Identifiers

PMID28567559
OpenAlexW2617700251

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.