Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29864132›Full record

Trial reportPLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Diagnostic comparison between FECPAKG2 and the Kato-Katz method for analyzing soil-transmitted helminth eggs in stool.

Wendelin Moser, Oliver Bärenbold, Greg J Mirams, Piet Cools, Johnny Vlaminck, Said M Ali, Shaali M Ame, Jan Hattendorf, Penelope Vounatsou, Bruno Levecke and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Parasitology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Diagnostic Techniques for Soil-Transmitted Helminths - Recent Advances.Research and reports in tropical medicine · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Novel Equine Faecal Egg Diagnostics: Validation of the FECPAKAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    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.

Wendelin MoserDepartment of Medical Parasitology and Infection Biology, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8195-3940
Oliver BärenboldUniversity of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Greg J MiramsTechion Group Limited, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Piet CoolsDepartment of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Johnny VlaminckDepartment of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Said M AliLaboratory Division, Public Health Laboratory-Ivo de Carneri, Chake Chake, Tanzania.
Shaali M AmeLaboratory Division, Public Health Laboratory-Ivo de Carneri, Chake Chake, Tanzania.
Jan HattendorfUniversity of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Penelope VounatsouUniversity of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Bruno LeveckeDepartment of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jennifer KeiserDepartment of Medical Parasitology and Infection Biology, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0290-3521

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver one billion people are infected with soil-transmitted helminths (STH), i.e. Ascaris lumbricoides, hookworm and Trichuris trichiura. For estimating drug efficacy and monitoring anthelminthic drug resistance, accurate diagnostic methods are critical. FECPAKG2 is a new remote-diagnostic tool used in veterinary medicine, which produces an image of the stool sample that can be stored on an internet cloud. We compared for the first time FECPAKG2 with the recommended Kato-Katz method. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsTwo stool samples were collected from adolescent participants (age 15-18 years) at baseline and 14 to 21 days after treatment in the framework of a randomized clinical trial on Pemba Island, Tanzania. Stool samples were analyzed with different diagnostic efforts: i) one or ii) two Kato-Katz thick smears from the first sample, iii) two Kato-Katz thick smears from two samples and iv) FECPAKG2 from the first sample. Parameters were calculated based on a hierarchical Bayesian egg count model. Complete data for all diagnostic efforts were available from 615 participants at baseline and 231 hookworm-positive participants at follow-up. At baseline FECPAKG2 revealed a sensitivity of 75.6% (72.0-77.7) for detecting A. lumbricoides, 71.5% (67.4-95.3) for hookworm and 65.8% (64.9-66.2) for T. trichiura, which was significantly lower (all p<0.05) than any of the Kato-Katz methods and highly dependent on infection intensity. Despite that the egg counts based on FECPAKG2 were relatively lower compared to Kato-Katz by a ratio of 0.38 (0.32-0.43) for A. lumbricoides, 0.36 (0.33-0.40) for hookworm and 0.08 (0.07-0.09) for T. trichiura, the egg reduction rates (ERR) were correctly estimated with FECPAKG2. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The sensitivity to identify any STH infection was considerably lower for FECPAKG2 compared to Kato-Katz. Following rigorous development, FECPAKG2 might be an interesting tool with unique features for epidemiological and clinical studies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAnimalsAscariasisAscaris lumbricoidesBayes TheoremFecesFemaleHelminthiasisHelminthsHumansIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticMaleParasite Egg CountReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificitySoilReagent Kits, DiagnosticSoil

Identifiers

PMID29864132
PMCPMC6002127

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.