ArticleHelminthologia2024
Relative egg extraction efficiencies of manual and automated fecal egg count methods in equines.
Article in Helminthologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fluorescence videography for the rapid and automated in-clinic detection of microfilariae.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Triclabendazole and Other Fasciolicides: Resistance ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Parasight All-in-One system for the automated enumeration of helminth ova in canine and feline feces.Parasites & vectors · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology recently released new recommendations for the design of fecal egg count (FEC) reduction tests for livestock. These provide suggestions as to the number of animals to be sampled and the minimum number of eggs that must be counted to produce statistically meaningful results. One of the considerations for study design is the multiplication factor of the FEC method to be used; methods with lower multiplication factors require fewer animals to be sampled because they are presumed to count more eggs per test. However, multiplication factor is not the sole determinant of the number of eggs counted by any given method, since different techniques use very different sample extraction methodologies that could affect the number of eggs detected beyond just the amount of feces examined. In this light, we compared three commonly used manual FEC methods (mini-FLOTAC, McMaster and Wisconsin) and two automated methods (Imagyst and Parasight All-in-One) with respect to how many equine strongylid and ascarid eggs they counted in the same samples. McMaster and mini-FLOTAC (multiplication factors of 25x and 5x, respectively) produced the most accurate results of the methods tested but mini-FLOTAC counted approximately 5-times more eggs than McMaster. However, Wisconsin and Parasight (multiplication factor = 1x) counted 3-times more ova than mini-FLOTAC, which was less than the 5-fold difference in their multiplication factors. As a result, these tests perform with multiplication factors more akin to 1.6x relative to mini-FLOTAC. Imagyst, due to its unique sample preparation methodology, does not have a traditional multiplication factor but performed similarly to McMaster with respect to egg recovery.
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.