Observational studyScientific reports2021
Automated parasitological diagnosis in clinical microbiology laboratories.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of the Techcyte AI-based image analysis system for coproparasitological diagnosis in clinical stool specimens: a retrospective evaluation study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of commercial and "In-House" molecular tests for the detection of intestinal protozoa in stool samples.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although there is a low prevalence of parasitological infections in Europe, the diagnosis of intestinal parasites is still difficult and laborious for microbiology laboratories. Currently, antigen detection assays and molecular biology allow a more accurate diagnosis, but these techniques have limitations as they cannot detect all the possible parasites present in the samples. The objective of the study was to evaluate the accuracy and the usefulness of automated microscopy SediMAX2 (77 Elektronika, Budapest, Hungary) in the detection of parasitic infections from feces. A total of 197 formol-fixed stool samples were processed in parallel by wet mount examination and by SediMAX2. Sensitivities, specificities and predictive values were analyzed, reaching a sensitivity of 89.51% and a specificity of 98.15% and a very good positive predictive value (99.22%). SediMAX2 is a good tool for a reliable diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections. The rapid processing and the flexibilty of storage of images analyzed make its incorporation into the day to day laboratory routine recommendable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.