Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32580759›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2020

The increased sensitivity of qPCR in comparison to Kato-Katz is required for the accurate assessment of the prevalence of soil-transmitted helminth infection in settings that have received multiple rounds of mass drug administration.

Julia C Dunn, Marina Papaiakovou, Kay Thwe Han, Darren Chooneea, Alison A Bettis, Nay Yee Wyine, Aye Moe Moe Lwin, Nay Soe Maung, Raju Misra, D T J Littlewood and 1 more

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 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Predisposition to Ascaris lumbricoides reinfection in the Geshiyaro project in southern Ethiopia.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Julia C DunnDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PG, UK. julia.dunn@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4789-9258
Marina PapaiakovouDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PG, UK.
Kay Thwe HanDepartment of Medical Research, Ministry of Health and Sports, Nyapyitaw, Myanmar.
Darren ChooneeaCore Research Laboratories, Natural History Museum, London, UK.
Alison A BettisDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PG, UK.
Nay Yee WyineLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, UK.
Aye Moe Moe LwinUniversity of Public Health, Myorma Kyaung Street, Yangon, 11131, Myanmar.
Nay Soe MaungUniversity of Public Health, Myorma Kyaung Street, Yangon, 11131, Myanmar.
Raju MisraCore Research Laboratories, Natural History Museum, London, UK.
D T J LittlewoodDepartment of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, UK.
Roy M AndersonDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PG, UK.
London Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research · GBNatural History Museum · GBUniversity of Public Health Yangon · MMMinistry of Health and Sports · MM

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe most commonly used diagnostic tool for soil-transmitted helminths (STH) is the Kato-Katz (KK) thick smear technique. However, numerous studies have suggested that the sensitivity of KK can be problematic, especially in low prevalence and low intensity settings. An emerging alternative is quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).

methodsIn this study, both KK and qPCR were conducted on stool samples from 648 participants in an STH epidemiology study conducted in the delta region of Myanmar in June 2016.

resultsPrevalence of any STH was 20.68% by KK and 45.06% by qPCR. Prevalence of each individual STH was also higher by qPCR than KK, the biggest difference was for hookworm with an approximately 4-fold increase between the two diagnostic techniques. Prevalence of Ancylostoma ceylanicum, a parasite predominately found in dogs, was 4.63%, indicating that there is the possibility of zoonotic transmission in the study setting. In individuals with moderate to high intensity infections there is evidence for a linear relationship between eggs per gram (EPG) of faeces, derived from KK, and DNA copy number, derived from qPCR which is particularly strong for Ascaris lumbricoides.

conclusionsThe use of qPCR in low prevalence settings is important to accurately assess the epidemiological situation and plan control strategies for the 'end game'. However, more work is required to accurately assess STH intensity from qPCR results and to reduce the cost of qPCR so that is widely accessible in STH endemic countries.

Indexed as

AncylostomaAncylostomatoideaAnimalsAnthelminticsAscaris lumbricoidesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDogsFecesHelminthiasisHelminthsHookworm InfectionsHumansMass Drug AdministrationNecator americanusParasite Egg CountPrevalenceAnthelminticsSoilDiagnosticsKato-KatzMonitoring and evaluationqPCRSoil-transmitted helminths

Identifiers

PMID32580759
PMCPMC7315547
OpenAlexW3037628346

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.