ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2017
Evaluation of Traditional and Contemporary Methods for Detecting
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Microbial and Parasitology Techniques for Diagnosis in Laboratory Rodents.Current protocols · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Intestinal parasites in rodents from five different Himas in Lebanon.Helminthologia · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the anthelmintic effectiveness ofHelminthologia · 2025Article
- An Update on the Biologic Effects of Fenbendazole.Comparative medicine · 2022Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Standardization of an LNA-based TaqMan assay qPCR analysis for Aspiculuris tetraptera DNA in mouse faeces.BMC microbiology · 2020Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Comparing Mouse Health Monitoring Between Soiled-bedding Sentinel and Exhaust Air Dust Surveillance Programs.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2020Article
- Comparison of Diagnostic Methods and Sampling Sites for the Detection of Demodex musculi.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2018Article
- 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 · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
28905712PMC5250492W2999563321What 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.