Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8567882›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical microbiology1995

Rapid diagnosis of Entamoeba infection by using Entamoeba and Entamoeba histolytica stool antigen detection kits.

R Haque, L M Neville, P Hahn, W A Petri

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical microbiology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 202 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Prevalence and associated risk factors ofJournal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology · 2022
    Article
  5. Accurate laboratory diagnosis of human intestinal and extra-intestinal amoebiasis.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2022
    Review
  6. Update on laboratory diagnosis of amoebiasis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019
    Review
  7. Whatman Protein Saver Cards for Storage and Detection of Parasitic Enteropathogens.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Diagnostic Interpretation Guidance for Pediatric Enteric Pathogens: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R HaqueInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
L M Neville
P Hahn
W A Petri
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BD

Funding

FIELD STUDIES OF IMMUNITY TO AMEBIASIS IN BANGLADESHR01AI043596 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI CAROL A GILCHRIST, William A Petri · 1998 to 2026
$7.7M
THE AD2 PROTEINASE: TARGET FOR ANTIVIRAL THERAPYU01AI026049 · NIAID · ASSOCIATED UNIV-BROOKHAVEN NATL LAB · PI MANGEL, WALTER F. · 1988 to 1994
–
NIAID NIH HHS AI-26049NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI043596
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans are infected by two morphologically identical species of Entamoeba: Entamoeba histolytica causes amebic colitis and liver abscess, and Entamoeba dispar is noninvasive. Several weeks of culture and isoenzyme (zymodeme) analysis are required to differentiate E. histolytica from E. dispar. Here we report a field trial of commercial antigen detection kits designed to rapidly detect and differentiate E. histolytica from E. dispar in stool specimens. Stool specimens from 202 patients with diarrhea were examined for E. histolytica and E. dispar by microscopy, culture, and antigen detection. Compared with culture, microscopic identification of the E. histolytica-E. dispar complex was 60% sensitive and 79% specific, while the screening antigen detection test for the E. histolytica-E. dispar complex was 80% sensitive and 99% specific. Differentiation of E. dispar from E. histolytica by the E. histolytica-specific test was 95% sensitive and 93% specific compared with zymodeme analysis. We conclude that the antigen detection test for the E. histolytica-E. dispar complex is more sensitive and specific than microscopy and that the E. histolytica-specific antigen detection test is as reliable and much more rapid than zymodeme analysis for the differentiation of E. histolytica from E. dispar.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAnimalsAntibodies, ProtozoanAntigens, ProtozoanEntamoebaEntamoeba histolyticaEntamoebiasisEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFecesTime FactorsAntibodies, ProtozoanAntigens, ProtozoanReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID8567882
PMCPMC228528
OpenAlexW1791396121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.