Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Dientamoeba”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

A rational approach to the stool ova and parasite examination.

BACKGROUND: Examination of multiple stool specimens per patient to rule out parasitic infection continues to be recommended in the literature. Attractive alternatives have been proposed, such as examination of a single specimen, but data to support their use have been inconclusive. METHODS: We reviewed the results of comprehensive stool ova and parasite examinations performed during a 1-year period to determine the incremental value of examining >1 specimen. Next, we implemented rejection criteria, allowing analysis of only a single specimen in most cases, and studied the impact of the change by reviewing data from a subsequent year. RESULTS: Prior to implementation of rejection criteria, 91% of parasites were detected in the first specimen submitted, although many clinical evaluations (72%) involved the submission of only 1 stool specimen. When at least 3 specimens were submitted, the sensitivity of examining the first in the series was 72%. Even the latter sensitivity provides negative predictive values of approximately 98%, approximately 97%, approximately 95%, or approximately 93% when the prevalence of parasites among those tested is 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20%, respectively. Examination of additional specimens after examination of the first specimen that yielded a positive finding revealed previously undetected parasites in only 10% of cases. After the application of rejection criteria, the parasite detection rate did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive examination of a single stool specimen is sufficient for most patients, when the prevalence of infection among the tested population is up to 20%. Rational use of the stool ova and parasite examination relies on communication between clinician and laboratory, and retention of deferred specimens in case examination of additional specimens is clinically warranted.

Animals↗
PubMed1991

Laboratory diagnosis of amebiasis.

The procedure used to diagnose amebiasis varies depending on the geographic location of the laboratory. However, in general, the microscopic diagnosis and differentiation of E. histolytica from other intestinal amebae is most satisfactorily achieved when the specimen is preserved immediately and both a concentration and stained smear are examined. The number of additional positive findings achieved by the cultivation of fecal material does not justify the time and cost involved. On the other hand, serology is a useful adjunct to diagnosis, especially in patients with extraintestinal amebiasis. The commercial development of antigen detection kits and DNA probes may provide more rapid, accurate, and less costly diagnostic procedures for the future. New guidelines need to be formulated regarding the number of specimens to be submitted, and the cost effectiveness of various diagnostic procedures should be evaluated.

Animals↗