ArticleParasites, hosts and diseases2025
Performance validation of the BD MAX Enteric Parasite Panel using simulated samples in low endemic regions.
Article in Parasites, hosts and diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular diagnostics are essential for detecting intestinal parasites, but evaluating clinical samples from low endemic areas, including Korea, is challenging. We tested the performance of the BD MAX Enteric Parasite Panel in simulated samples for clinical use. Simulated samples were prepared with residual stool samples to confirm the diagnostic performance of the kits. Standard materials for Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia lamblia, and Entamoeba histolytica were obtained for assessment. Limit of detection was determined by diluting standard materials into multiple concentrations and testing each in duplicate. Repeatability was assessed by retesting all samples twice. Accuracy was evaluated by comparing BD MAX System results with intended results. The limit of detection values obtained using standard materials were 781 cysts/ml, 6,250 oocysts/ml, and 125 DNA copies/ml for G. lamblia, C. parvum, and E. histolytica, respectively. Simulated G. lamblia-positive stool samples with concentrations above 6,250 cysts/ml consistently yielded positive results (100% concordance). However, C. parvum-positive stool samples at 6,250 oocysts/ml showed 50% concordance initially and 75% after retesting. At 62,500 oocysts/ml, the concordance rates were 89% initially and 100% after retesting. Overall agreement was 95.2%, but that for C. parvum was relatively low (82.4%). The diagnostic performances were 87.8% of sensitivity and 100% of specificity. Despite the limited clinical samples, BD MAX Enteric Parasite Panel showed good performance for clinical use, and spiked samples proved useful for evaluating protozoan PCR in low-incidence regions.
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.