Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30680271›Full record

ArticleCureus2018

Diagnostic Value of Gauze Filtration Technique: A Comparison with Conventional Methods in a Diagnostic Laboratory in Pakistan.

Naima Maqsood, Aymen Shakeel, Najia K Ghanchi, Ahmed Raheem, Feroz Zaheruddin, Ghazala Jabeen, Afsheen Raza, Mohammad A Beg

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 91% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Naima MaqsoodInternal Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Aymen ShakeelFamily Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Najia K GhanchiPathology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Ahmed RaheemPathology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Feroz ZaheruddinPathology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Ghazala JabeenPathology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Afsheen RazaPathology, Dadabhoy Institutes of Higher Education, Karachi, PAK.
Mohammad A BegPathology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Dadabhoy Institute of Higher Education · PKAga Khan University Hospital · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Intestinal parasites cause significant morbidity and impact human development with an enormous global burden. Diagnosis of intestinal parasites by conventional methods has several limitations. The gauze filtration technique is a relatively simple method that has been shown to identify intestinal parasites with a high sensitivity and specificity. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of this technique as compared to more conventional methods in a large acclaimed laboratory within Pakistan. Methods A total of 50 stool samples collected for routine diagnostic workup from patients age between 2-70 years were collected from the parasitology section of the Aga Khan University Hospital Clinical Laboratory. A direct wet mount, sedimentation technique, and gauze filtration technique were performed on all of the stool samples, and the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were analyzed. Results It was observed that the number of organisms observed by gauze filtration as compared to direct wet mount and sedimentation technique was higher for

Indexed as

diagnosticsdirect wet mountgauze filtration techniqueintestinal parasitespakistansedimentation technique

Identifiers

PMID30680271
PMCPMC6340411
OpenAlexW2900520366

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.