Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32375871›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2020

Cattle gastrointestinal nematode egg-spiked faecal samples: high recovery rates using the Mini-FLOTAC technique.

Alessandra Amadesi, Antonio Bosco, Laura Rinaldi, Giuseppe Cringoli, Edwin Claerebout, Maria Paola Maurelli

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alessandra AmadesiDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy. alessandra.amadesi@unina.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3805-3995
Antonio BoscoDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.
Laura RinaldiDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe CringoliDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.
Edwin ClaereboutDepartment of Virology, Parasitology and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Maria Paola MaurelliDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.
University of Naples Federico II · ITGhent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFaecal egg count (FEC) techniques are commonly used to detect gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) in cattle and to determine anthelmintic efficacy/resistance through the faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT). Mini-FLOTAC is one of the techniques recommended for a standardised FEC/FECRT of helminth eggs in cattle. However, only one paper evaluated the recovery rate of GIN eggs by Mini-FLOTAC (compared to McMaster and modified-Wisconsin method) in cattle, using only a level of contamination of 200 eggs per gram (EPG) of faeces and using GIN eggs collected from goat faeces to spike faecal samples from cattle. To further study the recovery rate of GIN eggs from cattle faeces, this study was conducted in two laboratories, one in Belgium and one in Italy to evaluate the sensitivity, accuracy, precision and reproducibility of the Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster techniques (at two reading levels: grids and chambers) for the detection of GIN eggs in spiked bovine faecal samples.

methodsIn both countries, spiked cattle faecal samples with five different levels of egg contamination (10, 50, 100, 200 and 500 EPG) of GINs were used. The study was performed in both laboratories by the same expert operator and using the same standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster techniques. Sensitivity, accuracy and precision were calculated for each technique and for each level of contamination. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate differences in performance between the two techniques.

resultsMini-FLOTAC had a higher sensitivity (100% at all EPG levels for Mini-FLOTAC vs 0-66.6% for McMaster chambers and grids at levels< 100 EPG), a higher accuracy (98.1% mean value for Mini-FLOTAC vs 83.2% for McMaster grids and 63.8% for McMaster chambers) and a lower coefficient of variation (10.0% for Mini-FLOTAC vs 47.5% for McMaster grids and 69.4% for McMaster chambers) than McMaster. There was no significant difference in the recovery of GIN eggs between the two studies performed in Belgium and in Italy.

conclusionsThe high GIN egg recovery rate detected by Mini-FLOTAC and the similar results obtained in Belgium and in Italy indicated that the diagnostic performance of a FEC technique was not dependent on the laboratory environment.

Indexed as

AnimalsCattleCattle DiseasesFecesGastrointestinal TractNematodaNematode InfectionsParasite Egg CountBelgiumCattleegg-spikingFaecal Egg CountGastrointestinal nematodesItalyMcMasterMini-FLOTAC

Identifiers

PMID32375871
PMCPMC7204292
OpenAlexW3022261126

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.