ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Comparative study on the detection efficacy of KU-F50 centrifugal method and routine detection methods for gastrointestinal parasites.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the detection performance of three automated fecal methods for common gastrointestinal parasites and assess the analytical validity of the KU-F50 centrifugal sedimentation method.
methodsA total of 1,290 fecal samples submitted to a hospital from December 10, 2025, to January 15, 2026, were collected. Parallel testing was performed using the KU-F50 centrifugal sedimentation method, the KU-F50 routine detection method, and the KU-F40 routine detection method. Cochran's Q test was used to compare the overall detection rates and the detection rates of various parasite eggs among the three methods.Pairwise comparisons were performed using the McNemar test and Bonferroni correction.
resultsThe total detection rates for the three methods were 15.81% (204/1290), 14.50% (187/1290), and 13.02% (168/1290), respectively, with a statistically significant difference (Q = 8.763, P = 0.013). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the McNemar test, and the Bonferroni method was adopted to adjust the significance level ([Formula: see text]=0.0167). The results indicated that the overall detection rate of the KU-F50 centrifugal sedimentation method was significantly higher than that of the KU-F40 routine detection method (P = 0.008).Subgroup analysis of individual parasite eggs resealed a statistically significant difference in the detection rate of Clonorchis sinensis eggs among the three methods (Q = 12.365,P = 0.002). Further pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction ([Formula: see text]=0.0167) showed that the KU-F50 centrifugal sedimentation method achieved a significantly higher detection rate for Clonorchis sinensis eggs than the KU-F40 routine detection method (P = 0.001). Gradient dilution experiments with Entamoeba samples showed that the KU-F50 centrifugal sedimentation method exhibited a positive deviation at low dilution factors (74.00%~122.00%) and a reduced deviation at high dilution factors (-10.00%~-20.00%). Both the KU-F50 routine detection method and the KU-F40 routine detection method showed negative deviations across the entire gradient. In simulated samples with 5, 10, and 15 pcs/mL, the detection rates of the KU-F50 centrifugal method reached 50%, 80%, and 80%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of the other two methods (0%~20%). The automatic recognition precision and recall rates of the KU-F50 centrifugal sedimentation method for Clonorchis sinensis eggs were 98.08% and 98.46%, respectively.
conclusionThe KU-F50 Centrifugal sedimentation method yields relatively higher detection rates for digestive tract parasites. Its testing results are in good consistency with manual interpretation, and it shows remarkable advantages in detecting Clonorchis sinensis eggs, possessing certain clinical application potential.
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.