ArticleOpen veterinary journal2023
Comparative performance evaluation of blood film microscopy for the diagnosis of bovine trypanosomosis by some laboratories in North-central Nigeria.
Article in Open veterinary journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to its affordability in disease-affected communities and suitability for field application, microscopy has historically been considered the gold standard for field diagnosis of trypanosomosis in rural settings. Aim: This works aims to compare the performance of microscopists on bovine trypanosome microscopy by organizing the first comparative assessment on a correct reading of slides by laboratory professionals using the read slide results and a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire in North-central Nigeria. Methods: Ten participants were addressed, as they were sent a panel of two slides (Slide 1: No Trypanosome present; Slide 2: Trypanosome present) and a questionnaire. Results: All participants greater than 41 years old reported correctly the presence and absence of parasites on slides. Only 3/8 of microscopists from routine diagnostic laboratories reported correctly the presence of the parasite. Conclusion: Our study confirmed errors in reading slides. Therefore, training of microscopists besides a nationwide quality assessment is recommended.
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.