ArticleActa parasitologica2024
Comparison of Methods in the Serologic Diagnosis of Cystic Echinococcosis.
Article in Acta parasitologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- From conventional to next-generation diagnostics in cystic echinococcosis: integrating serology, ultrasonography, and molecular tools: a review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Recent advances in clinical and laboratory diagnosis of hydatid cyst: from imaging to recombinant and nanobiosensor-based approaches.Infection · 2026Review
- Interventricular septal hydatid cyst of the heart presenting with syncope: a rare case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Rare anatomical localizations of primary hydatid cysts: A single-center retrospective observational study.Turkish journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Enhancing hydatid cysts diagnosis utilizing cell-free DNA as a sensitive biomarker forHelminthologia · 2026Article
- Challenges in Diagnosing and Managing Ovarian Hydatidosis: A Case Report and Literature Review from Iran.Acta parasitologica · 2025Review
- Primary meso-sigmoidal hydatid cyst: a rare presentation of echinococcosis: a case report.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Crude protoscolex antigens of echinococcus granulosus as serological markers for human hydatidosis detection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Design and evaluation of a novel direct hemagglutination test based on a recombinant protein for diagnosis of cystic echinococcosis.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Rare complex recurrent cystic echinococcosis with multi-organ involvement after inadequate postoperative therapy: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Effective Laboratory Diagnosis of Parasitic Infections of the Gastrointestinal Tract: Where, When, How, and What Should We Look For?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Case report: a rare case of intradural and pleural wall cystic echinococcosis.BMC infectious diseases · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCystic echinococcosis (CE) is caused by the larval form of Echinococcus granulosus. Clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and serologic findings should be evaluated together for the diagnosis of CE. The sensitivity and specificity oalf serologic tests may vary depending on the method used. In this study, we aimed to detect IgG antibodies specific to E. granulosus using indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect fluorescent antibodies (IFA) and western blot (WB) tests.
methodsIn our study, the serum samples of 74 patients sent to our laboratory with suspicion of CE were studied using two different commercial IHA tests, ELISA, IFA and WB test. The test results were evaluated along with radiological findings and histopathological examinations, the latter being the gold standard.
resultsOf all the patients, 51 (69%) were female and 23 (31%) were male. There was a statistically significant difference between males and females (χ
conclusionThere were statistically significant differences in between all five methods (p < 0,001). While the tests with the highest specificity was Fumouze IHA, the test with the highest sensitivity was the ELISA test. It was concluded that IHA and ELISA tests were more practical in practice because of their greater applicability.
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.