Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28905712›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2017

Evaluation of Traditional and Contemporary Methods for Detecting

Philip M Gerwin, Rodolfo J Ricart Arbona, Elyn R Riedel, Michelle L Lepherd, Ken S Henderson, Neil S Lipman

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluation of Direct Colony Sampling Compared with Sentinel-Free Soiled Bedding Testing for Murine Quarantine Programs.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation of In-cage Filter Paper as a Replacement for Sentinel Mice in the Detection of Murine Pathogens.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. PCR and RT-PCR in the Diagnosis of Laboratory Animal Infections and in Health Monitoring.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2020
    Article
  9. Comparing Mouse Health Monitoring Between Soiled-bedding Sentinel and Exhaust Air Dust Surveillance Programs.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2020
    Article
  10. Comparison of Diagnostic Methods and Sampling Sites for the Detection of Demodex musculi.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2018
    Article
  11. PCR Testing of IVC Filter Tops as a Method for Detecting Murine Pinworms and Fur Mites.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2017
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philip M GerwinTri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, and The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA; Center for Comparative Medicine and Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA; Comparative Medicine, Pfizer Worldwide Research and Development, Groton, Connecticut, USA. lipmann@mskcc.org.
Rodolfo J Ricart ArbonaTri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, and The Rockefeller University, Center for Comparative Medicine and Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Elyn R RiedelDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Michelle L LepherdCenter for Comparative Medicine and Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, Gribbles Veterinary, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Ken S HendersonResearch Animal Diagnostic Services, Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, Massachusetts, USA.
Neil S LipmanTri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and Science, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, and The Rockefeller University, Center for Comparative Medicine and Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA.
Charles River Laboratories (United States) · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Tri-Institutional Training Program in Laboratory Animal Medicine and ScienceR25OD010447 · OD · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI LIPMAN, NEIL SCOTT · 2012 to 2015
$474k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIH HHS R25 OD010447
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is no consensus regarding the best practice for detecting murine pinworm infections. Initially, we evaluated 7 fecal concentration methods by using feces containing Aspiculuris tetraptera (AT) eggs (n = 20 samples per method). Sodium nitrate flotation, sodium nitrate centrifugation, Sheather sugar centrifugation, and zinc sulfate centrifugation detected eggs in 100% of samples; zinc sulfate flotation and water sedimentation detected eggs in 90%. All had better detection rates than Sheather sugar flotation (50%). To determine optimal detection methods, Swiss Webster mice were exposed to Syphacia obvelata (SO; n = 60) or AT (n = 60). We compared the following methods at days 0, 30, and 90, beginning 21 or 28 d after SO and AT exposure, respectively: fecal concentration (AT only), anal tape test (SO only), direct examination of intestinal contents (cecum and colon), Swiss roll histology (cecum and colon), and PCR analysis (pooled fur swab and feces). Detection rates for SO-exposed mice were: PCR analysis, 45%; Swiss roll histology, 30%; intestinal content exam, 27%; and tape test, 27%. The SO detection rate for PCR analysis was significantly greater than that for the tape test. Detection rates for AT-exposed mice were: intestinal content exam, 53%; PCR analysis, 33%; fecal flotation, 22%; and Swiss roll histology, 17%. The AT detection rate of PCR analysis combined with intestinal content examination was greater than for PCR analysis only and the AT detection rate of intestinal content examination was greater than for Swiss roll histology. Combining PCR analysis with intestinal content examination detected 100% of infected animals. No single test detected all positive animals. We recommend combining PCR analysis with intestinal content examination for optimal pinworm detection.

Indexed as

AnimalsEnterobiasisEnterobiusFecesFemaleLaboratory Animal ScienceMiceRodent DiseasesSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID28905712
PMCPMC5250492
OpenAlexW2999563321

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.