Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34012680›Full record

ArticleJournal of parasitology research2021

Evaluation of Hookworm Diagnosis Techniques from Patients in Debre Elias and Sanja Districts of the Amhara Region, Ethiopia.

Ayalew Jejaw Zeleke, Ayenew Addisu, Adane Derso, Yalewayker Tegegne, Meseret Birhanie, Tekeba Sisay, Mulugeta Aemero

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of parasitology research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Modified Nonnutrient Agar Plate Culture for the Diagnosis ofJournal of parasitology research · 2022
    Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ayalew Jejaw ZelekeDepartment of Medical Parasitology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9640-4784
Ayenew AddisuDepartment of Medical Parasitology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9339-005X
Adane DersoDepartment of Medical Parasitology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5961-2405
Yalewayker TegegneDepartment of Medical Parasitology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5306-6175
Meseret BirhanieDepartment of Medical Parasitology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Tekeba SisayInstitute of Biotechnology, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Mulugeta AemeroDepartment of Medical Parasitology, School of Biomedical and Laboratory Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0225-9361
University of Gondar · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInappropriate diagnosis could intimidate the prevention and control of hookworm infection. Thus, this study was aimed at evaluating the performance of hookworm diagnosis methods.

methodsAn institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted from patients in Debre Elias and Sanja districts of the Amhara region, Ethiopia, from November 2019 to January 2020. The study subjects were selected conveniently. After the data was entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, test accuracy, and agreement of the different hookworm diagnosis methods, namely, test tube flotation technique (TFT), McMaster (MM), formol-ether concentration (FEC), Kato-Katz (KK), and direct wet mount microscopy (DWMM), were calculated by using SPSS software. The composite reference standard (CRS) was used as the gold standard method. The kappa (

resultA total of 389 stool samples were collected from patients in the study. The overall prevalence of hookworm was 63.24%. The test tube flotation technique (TFT) was found to be the highest both in terms of sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy (100%). McMaster (MM) was the second most sensitive test (68.7%), followed by FEC (44.3%) and KK (38.2%). On the other hand, DWMM had the lowest sensitivity (37.4%), and its diagnostic accuracy was also the least (60%). Only TFT had a perfect agreement (agreement = 100%, kappa = 1) with the CRS. The sensitivity of DWMM, KK, and FEC showed a kind of linear function with the intensity of infection, but TFT and MM methods were not affected by the infection intensity.

conclusionHookworm is still a public health problem in the study area. TFT is by far more sensitive than MM, FEC, KK, and DWMM techniques.

Identifiers

PMID34012680
PMCPMC8102123
OpenAlexW3157956225

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.