Detail
Článek
Web zdroj
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Evaluation of Giardia intestinalis, Entamoeba histolytica and Cryptosporidium hominis/Cryptosporidium parvum in human stool samples by the BD MAXTM Enteric Parasite Panel

S. Akgun, T. Celik,

. 2020 ; 67 (-) : . [pub] 20200807

Jazyk angličtina Země Česko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21001263

Although the microscopic examination of stool samples remains the reference method of choice for the diagnosis of intestinal protistan infections, this method is time-consuming and requires experienced and well-trained operators. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement between the BD MAX TM Enteric Parasite Panel (EPP) and microscopy for the detection of Giardia intestinalis (Lambl, 1859), Cryptosporidium spp. and Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 in stool samples. The study included faecal samples of 362 patients who were admitted to our hospital due to gastrointestinal complaints. In the microscopic examination, which was made with the native-lugol method on the stool samples that were taken from the patients, cysts, trophozoites and eggs of the parasite were examined. The diagnosis of G. intestinalis, Cryptosporidium parvum Tyzzer, 1912 and Cryptosporidium hominis Morgan-Ryan, Fall, Ward, Hijjawi, Sulaiman, Fayer, Thompson, Olson, Lal et Xiao, 2002, and E. histolytica was made in the faecal samples using the EPP assay. In the microscopic examination, Cryptosporidium spp. positive stool samples were stained with kinyoun's acid-fast. In the microscopic examination, parasites were detected in 41 (11%) of the 362 stool samples. In contrast, EPP assay identified parasites in 23 (6.3%) of the samples. In the microscopic examination, E. histolytica and Entamoeba dispar Brumpt, 1925 were detected in 22 (6.1%) of the samples, G. intestinalis was seen in 15 (4.1%), and C. parvum or C. hominis were detected in three (0.8%); these values were five (1.4%), 16 (4.4%) and two (0.5%) positive with the EPP assay. Although C. parvum or C. hominis were detected as positive in the microscopic examination of three samples, only two of the samples were positive in both EPP assay and kinyoun's acid-fast method. The EPP assay is a relatively simple test that can distinguish E. histolytica and E. dispar, but it cannot replace microscopy in the diagnosis of amoebiasis. Diagnosis for G. intestinalis and C. parvum/C. hominis with the BD MAXTM enteric parasite panel was equivalent to that with microscopy. We believe that E. histolytica must be diagnosed with nucleic acid amplification tests that have a high sensitivity and specificity like EPP assay in certain patient groups.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21001263
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210119091115.0
007      
ta
008      
210119s2020 xr f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.14411/fp.2020.020 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32812530
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Akgun, Sadik $u Adiyaman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Microbiology, Adiyaman, Turkey.
245    10
$a Evaluation of Giardia intestinalis, Entamoeba histolytica and Cryptosporidium hominis/Cryptosporidium parvum in human stool samples by the BD MAXTM Enteric Parasite Panel / $c S. Akgun, T. Celik,
520    9_
$a Although the microscopic examination of stool samples remains the reference method of choice for the diagnosis of intestinal protistan infections, this method is time-consuming and requires experienced and well-trained operators. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement between the BD MAX TM Enteric Parasite Panel (EPP) and microscopy for the detection of Giardia intestinalis (Lambl, 1859), Cryptosporidium spp. and Entamoeba histolytica Schaudinn, 1903 in stool samples. The study included faecal samples of 362 patients who were admitted to our hospital due to gastrointestinal complaints. In the microscopic examination, which was made with the native-lugol method on the stool samples that were taken from the patients, cysts, trophozoites and eggs of the parasite were examined. The diagnosis of G. intestinalis, Cryptosporidium parvum Tyzzer, 1912 and Cryptosporidium hominis Morgan-Ryan, Fall, Ward, Hijjawi, Sulaiman, Fayer, Thompson, Olson, Lal et Xiao, 2002, and E. histolytica was made in the faecal samples using the EPP assay. In the microscopic examination, Cryptosporidium spp. positive stool samples were stained with kinyoun's acid-fast. In the microscopic examination, parasites were detected in 41 (11%) of the 362 stool samples. In contrast, EPP assay identified parasites in 23 (6.3%) of the samples. In the microscopic examination, E. histolytica and Entamoeba dispar Brumpt, 1925 were detected in 22 (6.1%) of the samples, G. intestinalis was seen in 15 (4.1%), and C. parvum or C. hominis were detected in three (0.8%); these values were five (1.4%), 16 (4.4%) and two (0.5%) positive with the EPP assay. Although C. parvum or C. hominis were detected as positive in the microscopic examination of three samples, only two of the samples were positive in both EPP assay and kinyoun's acid-fast method. The EPP assay is a relatively simple test that can distinguish E. histolytica and E. dispar, but it cannot replace microscopy in the diagnosis of amoebiasis. Diagnosis for G. intestinalis and C. parvum/C. hominis with the BD MAXTM enteric parasite panel was equivalent to that with microscopy. We believe that E. histolytica must be diagnosed with nucleic acid amplification tests that have a high sensitivity and specificity like EPP assay in certain patient groups.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a kryptosporidióza $x epidemiologie $x parazitologie $7 D003457
650    _2
$a Cryptosporidium $x izolace a purifikace $7 D003458
650    _2
$a Cryptosporidium parvum $x izolace a purifikace $7 D016785
650    _2
$a Entamoeba histolytica $x izolace a purifikace $7 D004748
650    _2
$a entamébóza $x epidemiologie $x parazitologie $7 D004749
650    _2
$a feces $x parazitologie $7 D005243
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a Giardia lamblia $x izolace a purifikace $7 D016829
650    _2
$a giardiáza $x epidemiologie $x parazitologie $7 D005873
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a prevalence $7 D015995
651    _2
$a Turecko $x epidemiologie $7 D014421
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Celik, Tuncay $u Adiyaman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Microbiology, Adiyaman, Turkey.
773    0_
$w MED00011006 $t Folia parasitologica $x 1803-6465 $g Roč. 67, č. - (2020)
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32812530 $y Pubmed
856    41
$u https://folia.paru.cas.cz/pdfs/fol/2020/01/20.pdf $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b online $c $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20210119 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210119091113 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1611086 $s 1121546
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 67 $c - $e 20200807 $i 1803-6465 $m Folia parasitologica $n Folia parasitol. $x MED00011006
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210119

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...