Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29518081›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Study of diagnostic accuracy of Helmintex, Kato-Katz, and POC-CCA methods for diagnosing intestinal schistosomiasis in Candeal, a low intensity transmission area in northeastern Brazil.

Catieli Gobetti Lindholz, Vivian Favero, Carolina de Marco Verissimo, Renata Russo Frasca Candido, Renata Perotto de Souza, Renata Rosa Dos Santos, Alessandra Loureiro Morassutti, Helio Radke Bittencourt, Malcolm K Jones, Timothy G St Pierre and 1 more

Abstract 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 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

11 authors.

Catieli Gobetti LindholzLaboratório de Biologia Parasitária, School of Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Vivian FaveroLaboratório de Biologia Parasitária, School of Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Carolina de Marco VerissimoLaboratório de Biologia Parasitária, School of Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Renata Russo Frasca CandidoSchool of Physics, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
Renata Perotto de SouzaLaboratório de Biologia Parasitária, School of Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Renata Rosa Dos SantosLaboratório de Biologia Parasitária, School of Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Alessandra Loureiro MorassuttiLaboratório de Biologia Parasitária, School of Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Helio Radke BittencourtPolytechnic School, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Malcolm K JonesSchool of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
Timothy G St PierreSchool of Physics, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
Carlos Graeff-TeixeiraLaboratório de Biologia Parasitária, School of Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2725-0061

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Control initiatives have successfully reduced the prevalence and intensity of schistosomiasis transmission in several localities around the world. However, individuals that release low numbers of eggs in their feces may not be detected by classical methods that are limited by low sensitivity. Given that accurate estimates of prevalence are key to implementing planning control actions for the elimination of schistosomiasis, new diagnostic tools are needed to effectively monitor infections and confirm transmission interruption. The World Health Organization recommends the Kato-Katz (KK) thick smear as a parasitological test for epidemiological surveys, even though this method has been demonstrated to underestimate prevalence when egg burdens are low. The point-of-care immunodiagnostic for detecting schistosome cathodic circulating antigen (POC-CCA) method has been proposed as a more sensitive substitute for KK in prevalence estimations. An alternative diagnostic, the Helmintex (HTX) method, isolates eggs from fecal samples with the use of paramagnetic particles in a magnetic field. Here, a population-based study involving 461 individuals from Candeal, Sergipe State, Brazil, was conducted to evaluate these three methods comparatively by latent class analysis (LCA). The prevalence of schistosomiasis mansoni was determined to be 71% with POC-CCA, 40.% with HTX and 11% with KK. Most of the egg burdens of the individuals tested (70%) were < 1 epg, thereby revealing a dissociation between prevalence and intensity in this locality. Therefore, the present results confirm that the HTX method is a highly sensitive egg detection procedure and support its use as a reference method for diagnosing intestinal schistosomiasis and for comparative evaluation of other tests.

Indexed as

AdolescentAnimalsAntigens, HelminthBrazilChildChild, PreschoolFecesFemaleHumansInfantIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticMaleParasite Egg CountPoint-of-Care SystemsPopulation HealthPrevalenceAntigens, Helminth

Identifiers

PMID29518081
PMCPMC5843168

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.