Observational studyInfection2026
Treatment outcomes in symptomatic Dientamoeba fragilis infection: a prospective clinical and molecular study.
Observational study in Infection, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe clinical significance and optimal treatment of Dientamoeba fragilis (DF) infection remain controversial, despite its frequent detection in patients with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. This study aimed to evaluate clinical and molecular responses to various antiparasitic regimens and to assess the association between symptom resolution and parasite eradication.
methodsIn this prospective, single-center observational study conducted between January 2019 and June 2023, we included 105 symptomatic patients with a positive stool PCR for DF. Patients were treated with paromomycin (PAR), nitroimidazole monotherapy (NM; metronidazole/tinidazole), or a combination of tinidazole and albendazole (T + A). Clinical and molecular outcomes were assessed one month post-treatment using a structured symptom questionnaire and repeat PCR testing.
resultsOf 96 patients with follow-up, 73 underwent repeat PCR testing. PAR was associated with significantly higher clinical and molecular cure rates (82.8% and 88.5%, respectively) compared to T + A (35.0% and 29.2%) and NM (4.2% and 10.0%). Combination therapy with T + A was superior to NM in clinical response but not in molecular clearance. A strong correlation was observed between clinical cure and DF eradication (p < 0.00001), reinforcing the pathogenic role of DF. Median symptom duration before referral was 9 months, indicating the chronic nature of untreated infection.
conclusionsDF should be considered in patients with unexplained chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. Molecular testing is recommended for accurate diagnosis. Paromomycin appears to be the most effective treatment, with a strong association between clinical recovery and microbiological cure. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to further define optimal management strategies for DF infection.
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.