ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Effective Laboratory Diagnosis of Parasitic Infections of the Gastrointestinal Tract: Where, When, How, and What Should We Look For?
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global prevalence and correlation of intestinal parasitic infections in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Decoding Leukocyte Dynamics: Functional Biomarkers and Precision Diagnostics in Parasitic Infections.Acta parasitologica · 2026Review
- Decoding Leukocyte Dynamics: Functional Biomarkers and Precision Diagnostics in Parasitic Infections.Acta parasitologica · 2026Review
- Evaluation of KU-F40 automated microscope for parasitology: when artificial intelligence meets old school microscopy.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Stool Parasitological Examination: A Diagnostic Methodology Under Threat of Extinction.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2026Article
- The first molecular study of Cystoisospora belli and Cyclospora cayetanensis in HIV/AIDS patients from Northern Iran.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing infectious intestinal disease diagnosis through metagenomic and metatranscriptomic sequencing of 1000 human diarrhoeal samples.Genome medicine · 2025Article
- From the desk of editor-in-chief: Ensuring quality assurance in parasitology laboratories.Tropical parasitologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Introduction: Gastrointestinal parasites (GIPs) are one of the most common causes of disease in the world. Clinical diagnosis of most parasitic diseases is difficult because they do not produce characteristic symptoms. (2) Methods: The PubMed, Science Direct, and Wiley Online Library medical databases were reviewed using the following phrases: "parasitic infections and diagnostics", "intestinal parasites", "gastrointestinal parasites", "parasitic infections and diagnostics", and their combinations. (3) Results and Conclusions: Correct diagnosis of GIP involves determining the presence of a parasite and establishing a relationship between parasite invasion and disease symptoms. The diagnostic process should consider the possibility of the coexistence of infection with several parasites at the same time. In such a situation, diagnostics should be planned with consideration of their frequency in each population and the local epidemiological situation. The importance of the proper interpretation of laboratory test results, based on good knowledge of the biology of the parasite, should be emphasized. The presence of the parasite may not be causally related to the disease symptoms. Due to wide access to laboratories, patients often decide to perform tests themselves without clinical justification. Research is carried out using various methods which are often unreliable. This review briefly covers current laboratory methods for diagnosing the most common gastrointestinal parasitic diseases in Europe. In particular, we provide useful information on the following aspects: (i) what to look for and where to look for it (suitability of feces, blood, duodenal contents, material taken from endoscopy or biopsy, tissue samples, and locations for searching for eggs, cysts, parasites, parasite genetic material, and characteristics of immune responses indicating parasitic infections); (ii) when material should be collected for diagnosis and/or to check the effectiveness of treatment; (iii) how-that is, by what methods-laboratory diagnostics should be carried out. Here, the advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect methods of detecting parasites will be discussed. False-positive or false-negative results are a problem facing many tests. Available tests have different sensitivities and specificities. Therefore, especially in doubtful situations, tests for the presence of the pathogen should be performed using various available methods. It is important that the methods used make it possible to distinguish an active infection from a past infection. Finally, we present laboratory "case reports", in which we will discuss the diagnostic procedure that allows for the successful identification of parasites. Additionally, we briefly present the possibilities of using artificial intelligence to improve the effectiveness of diagnosing parasitic diseases.
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.