Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29470516›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Evaluation of diagnostic methods for the detection of intestinal schistosomiasis in endemic areas with low parasite loads: Saline gradient, Helmintex, Kato-Katz and rapid urine test.

Warllem Junio Oliveira, Fernanda do Carmo Magalhães, Andressa Mariana Saldanha Elias, Vanessa Normandio de Castro, Vivian Favero, Catieli Gobetti Lindholz, Áureo Almeida Oliveira, Fernando Sergio Barbosa, Frederico Gil, Maria Aparecida Gomes and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Warllem Junio OliveiraDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Fernanda do Carmo MagalhãesDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Andressa Mariana Saldanha EliasDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Vanessa Normandio de CastroDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Vivian FaveroGrupo de Parasitologia Médica, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brasil.
Catieli Gobetti LindholzGrupo de Parasitologia Médica, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brasil.
Áureo Almeida OliveiraLaboratório de Esquistossomose, Centro de Pesquisas René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Fernando Sergio BarbosaDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Frederico GilDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Maria Aparecida GomesDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Carlos Graeff-TeixeiraGrupo de Parasitologia Médica, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brasil.
Martin Johannes EnkSecretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, Instituto Evandro Chagas, Ministério da Saúde, Belém, Brasil.
Paulo Marcos Zech CoelhoLaboratório de Esquistossomose, Centro de Pesquisas René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Mariângela CarneiroDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Deborah Aparecida Negrão-CorrêaDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Stefan Michael GeigerDepartamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-9741-2727
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul · BRFundação Oswaldo Cruz · BRInstituto Evandro Chagas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn some tropical countries, such as Brazil, schistosomiasis control programs have led to a significant reduction in the prevalence and parasite burden of endemic populations. In this setting, the Kato-Katz technique, as the standard diagnostic method for the diagnosis of Schistosoma mansoni infections, which involves the analysis of two slides from one fecal sample, loses its sensitivity. As a result, a significant number of infected individuals are not detected. The objective of this study was to perform extensive parasitological testing of up to three fecal samples and include a rapid urine test (POC-CCA) in a moderate prevalence area in Northern Minas Gerais, Brazil, and evaluate the performance of each test separately and in combination. METHODS AND

findingsA total of 254 individuals were examined with variants of the standard Kato-Katz technique (up to18 Kato-Katz slides prepared from three fecal samples), a modified Helmintex (30 g of feces), the saline gradient (500 mg of feces), and the POC-CCA methods. We established a reference standard taking into consideration all the positive results in any of the parasitological exams. Evaluation of the parasite burden by two Kato-Katz slides confirmed that most of the individuals harbored a light infection. When additional slides and different parasitological methods were included, the estimated prevalence rose 2.3 times, from 20.4% to 45.9%. The best sensitivity was obtained with the Helmintex method (84%). All parasitological methods readily detected a high or moderate intensity of infection; however, all lost their high sensitivity in the case of low or very low intensity infections. The overall sensitivity of POC-CCA (64.9%) was similar to the six Kato-Katz slides from three fecal samples. However, POC-CCA showed low concordance (κ = 0.34) when compared with the reference standard.

conclusionsThe recommended Kato-Katz method largely underestimated the prevalence of S. mansoni infection. Because the best performance was achieved with a modified Helmintex method, this technique might serve as a more precise reference standard. An extended number of Kato-Katz slides in combination with other parasitological methods or with POC-CCA was able to detect more than 80% of egg-positive individuals; however, the rapid urine test (POC-CCA) produced a considerable percentage of false positive results.

Indexed as

Parasite LoadAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsAntigens, HelminthBrazilChildChild, PreschoolClinical Laboratory TechniquesFecesFemaleHumansIncomeMaleAntigens, Helminth

Identifiers

PMID29470516
PMCPMC5823366
OpenAlexW2788804909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.