ArticleParasites & vectors2023
Diagnostic performance of Strongyloides-specific IgG4 detection in urine for diagnosis of human strongyloidiasis.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of a recombinant endonuclease III protein and its synthetic peptides in ELISA for the diagnosis of tegumentary leishmaniasis using human serum and urine samples: A preliminary study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Partially purifiedMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Post-COVID syndrome patients show reduced anti-Spike antibodies compared to COVID-recovered controls, but enhanced IgG4/IgG1 switch after the third vaccine dose.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Strongyloidiasis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetection of parasite-specific IgG in urine is a sensitive method for diagnosis of strongyloidiasis and gives similar accuracy to serum IgG. However, there are no data concerning detection of IgG subclass in urine. To further explore the utility of diagnosis from urine samples, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of IgG4 in urine compared with parasitological and other immunological methods.
methodsThe urine and sera included proven strongyloidiasis (group 1, n = 93), other parasitic infections (group 2, n = 40) and parasite negatives (group 3, n = 93). The performance of Strongyloides-specific IgG4 in urine for diagnosis of strongyloidiasis using fecal examinations as the reference standard was assessed.
resultsWith fecal examination as a gold standard, Strongyloides-specific IgG4 in urine had 91.4% sensitivity and 93.2% specificity while serum IgG4 had 93.6% sensitivity and 91.0% specificity. IgG4 in both urine and serum had almost perfect diagnostic agreements with fecal examination (Cohen's kappa coefficient was > 0.8). Cross-reactivity to Opisthorchis viverrini and Taenia spp. of IgG4 in urine were 7.5% and 12.5% in serum. Concurrent analyses of total IgG in urine and serum showed that the sensitivities (97.9-100%) and specificities (88.7-91.0%) were similar (P > 0.05). The sensitivity for parasitological examination by the formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT) was 49.5% and that for agar plate culture technique (APC) it was 92.6%.
conclusionOur findings showed that specific IgG4 detection in urine yielded similar diagnostic performance to the same biomarkers in serum. This suggests that accurate diagnosis of strongyloidiasis can be performed using urine samples and IgG4 is a valid choice of diagnostic marker. Further assessment is required to assess the utility of urine IgG4 for measuring the response treatment in strongyloidiasis.
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.