Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33859481›Full record

ArticleInfection and drug resistance2021

Evaluation of Wet Mount and Concentration Techniques of Stool Examination for Intestinal Parasites Identification at Debre Markos Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia.

Gebreselassie Demeke, Abebe Fenta, Tebelay Dilnessa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gebreselassie DemekeDepartment of Medical Laboratory Science, Health Science College, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-2758-2915
Abebe FentaDepartment of Medical Laboratory Science, Health Science College, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-0775-5639
Tebelay DilnessaDepartment of Medical Laboratory Science, Health Science College, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-3713-6783
Debre Markos University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntestinal parasitic infection has serious medical and public health impacts in developing countries. Intestinal parasites were under reported via direct wet mount method due to its poor sensitivity. So, the selection of a more sensitive and reliable diagnostic method is essential.

objectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of wet mount and concentration techniques of stool examination for intestinal parasites identification.

methodsA cross-sectional study among 797 pregnant women was conducted from October 2018 to February 2019 at Debre Markos Comprehensive Specialized Hospital. The study participants were selected by using a systematic random sampling technique. Stool sample was processed by using Wet Mount (WM) and Formol-Ether Concentration (FEC) techniques. Data was entered into Epi-data version 3.1 and analysis using SPSS version 20.0. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were determined against the combined result as "Gold" standard. Kappa value was determined to estimate the agreement of the diagnostic methods.

resultsThe overall prevalence of intestinal parasites (IP) was 35.2% with a combined method. By using WM and FEC the prevalence of IP was 13.1% and 25.7%, respectively. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of WM method were 37.1% and 74.6%, and for FEC method 73.5% and 87.5%, respectively. Test efficiency of direct WM and FEC were 77.9% and 90.7%, respectively. The agreement of WM and FEC techniques with combined technique were moderate (κ=0.434) and perfect (κ=0.783), respectively.

conclusionThe prevalence of intestinal parasites was under-reported by wet mount technique. The diagnostic performance of FEC technique for the diagnosis of intestinal parasites in pregnant women was notably high as compared to WM technique in the present study. Therefore, the WM and FEC combined method should be used as a routine diagnostic technique for the diagnosis of intestinal parasites identification.

Indexed as

diagnostic method comparisonEthiopiaintestinal parasitespregnant women

Identifiers

PMID33859481
PMCPMC8043790
OpenAlexW3149696814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.