Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32103784›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2020

The buffy coat method: a tool for detection of blood parasites without staining procedures.

Carolina R F Chagas, Rasa Binkienė, Mikas Ilgūnas, Tatjana Iezhova, Gediminas Valkiūnas

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. The Study onInsects · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Prevalence ofVeterinary world · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Parasite Burden ofMicroorganisms · 2024
    Article
  15. Exo-erythrocytic development ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2023
    Article
  16. Prevalence and Diversity of Blood Parasites (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carolina R F ChagasNature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412, Vilnius, Lithuania. crfchagas@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7884-9085
Rasa BinkienėNature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Mikas IlgūnasNature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Tatjana IezhovaNature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Gediminas ValkiūnasNature Research Centre, Akademijos 2, 08412, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Nature Research Centre · LT

Funding

Lietuvos Mokslo Taryba DOTSUT-137-09.3.3-LMT-K-712-02-0004Lietuvos Mokslo Taryba S-MIP-17-27
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlood parasites belonging to the Apicomplexa, Trypanosomatidae and Filarioidea are widespread in birds and have been studied extensively. Microscopical examination (ME) of stained blood films remains the gold standard method for the detection of these infections in birds, particularly because co-infections predominate in wildlife. None of the available molecular tools can detect all co-infections at the same time, but ME provides opportunities for this to be achieved. However, fixation, drying and staining of blood films as well as their ME are relatively time-consuming. This limits the detection of infected hosts during fieldwork when captured animals should be released soon after sampling. It is an obstacle for quick selection of donor hosts for parasite experimental, histological and other investigations in the field. This study modified, tested and described the buffy coat method (BCM) for quick diagnostics (~ 20 min/sample) of avian blood parasites.

methodsBlood of 345 birds belonging to 42 species was collected, and each sample was examined using ME of stained blood films and the buffy coat, which was examined after centrifugation in capillary tubes and after being transferred to objective glass slides. Parasite detection using these methods was compared using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and Cohen's kappa index.

resultsHaemoproteus, Leucocytozoon, Plasmodium, microfilariae, Trypanosoma and Lankesterella parasites were detected. BCM had a high sensitivity (> 90%) and specificity (> 90%) for detection of Haemoproteus and microfilariae infections. It was of moderate sensitivity (57%) and high specificity (> 90%) for Lankesterella infections, but of low sensitivity (20%) and high specificity (> 90%) for Leucocytozoon infections. Trypanosoma and Plasmodium parasites were detected only by BCM and ME, respectively. According to Cohen's kappa index, the agreement between two diagnostic tools was substantial for Haemoproteus (0.80), moderate for Lankesterella (0.46) and fair for microfilariae and Leucocytozoon (0.28) infections.

conclusionsBCM is sensitive and recommended as a quick and reliable tool to detect Haemoproteus, Trypanosoma and microfilariae parasites during fieldwork. However, it is not suitable for detection of species of Leucocytozoon and Plasmodium. BCM is a useful tool for diagnostics of blood parasite co-infections. Its application might be extended to studies of blood parasites in other vertebrates during field studies.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, WildBird DiseasesBirdsBlood Buffy CoatParasitesParasitologySpecies SpecificityStaining and LabelingBirdsBlood parasitesFieldworkHaemoproteusLankesterellaLeucocytozoonMicrofilariaParasite diagnosticsPlasmodiumTrypanosoma

Identifiers

PMID32103784
PMCPMC7045512
OpenAlexW3011401047

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.