ReviewIranian journal of parasitology
Antigen-Based Diagnosis of Human Giardiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Iranian journal of parasitology. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can Wastewater Surveillance Enhance Genomic Tracking of Climate-Driven Pathogens?Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Molecular epidemiology and multilocus genotyping ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to present a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that used antigen-based assays for the diagnosis of human giardiasis. Methods: All the related published literature cited within PubMed, ISI web of science, Google Scholar, Embase, and Scopus, were searched up to December 2021. The search terms, both as MeSH terms and text words, were " Results: The search of databases found 1683 papers, of which 46 articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. The sensitivity of antigen-based methods for the diagnosis of human giardiasis ranged from 45% (95% CI: 31-59%) to 100% (95% CI: 100-100%) and the pooled estimate of sensitivity was 92% (95% CI: 90-93%). The pooled estimated specificity was 97% (95% CI: 96-98%), ranged from 81% (95% CI: 68-89%) to 100% (95% CI: 98-100%). The summary estimate of PPV and NPV were 92 % (95% CI: 90-93%) and 97% (95% CI: 96-98%) respectively. Comparing the performance of the antigen detection assays by region revealed a significant difference in the assay's performances in different regions of the world. Conclusion: The antigen-based detection methods have acceptable and satisfactory performance in the diagnosis of human giardiasis. The task ahead is to identify more specific target antigens and design simpler, cheaper, and more sensitive methods for the diagnosis of this common worldwide-distributed parasitic infection.
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.