These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18436608)

  • 1. Wet mounting using iodine-glycerol provides a semi-permanent preparation for microscopic observation of faecal parasites.
    Vignesh R; Sekar R; Shankar EM; Kumarasamy N; Murugavel KG; Irene P; Solomon S; Balakrishnan P
    J Med Microbiol; 2008 May; 57(Pt 5):679-680. PubMed ID: 18436608
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of formalin-acetone sedimentation in the concentration of stool for intestinal parasites.
    Parija SC; Bhattacharya S; Padhan P; Shivaprakash MR
    Trop Doct; 2003 Jul; 33(3):163-4. PubMed ID: 12870605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of pooled formalin-preserved fecal specimens with three individual samples for detection of intestinal parasites.
    Aldeen WE; Shisenant J; Hale D; Matsen J; Carroll K
    J Clin Microbiol; 1993 Jan; 31(1):144-5. PubMed ID: 8417020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improvement in the identification of intestinal parasites by a concentrated merthiolate-iodine-formaldehyde technique.
    Wang LC
    J Parasitol; 1998 Apr; 84(2):457-8. PubMed ID: 9576528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Examination of preserved stool specimens for parasites: lack of value of the direct wet mount.
    Estevez EG; Levine JA
    J Clin Microbiol; 1985 Oct; 22(4):666-7. PubMed ID: 2416772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Examination of feces for the detection of parasites. A comparison of 2 methods].
    McClure E; García A; Trujillo J; Bawden M
    Rev Med Panama; 1984 Sep; 9(3):226-9. PubMed ID: 6494506
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Viewpoint: the neglect of stool microscopy for intestinal parasites and possible solutions.
    Parija SC; Srinivasa H
    Trop Med Int Health; 1999 Jul; 4(7):522-4. PubMed ID: 10470345
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Application of lactophenol cotton blue for identification and preservation of intestinal parasites in faecal wet mounts.
    Khubnani H; Sivarajan K; Khubnani AH
    Indian J Pathol Microbiol; 1998 Apr; 41(2):157-62. PubMed ID: 9670627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Intestinal parasites: the necessity of examining multiple stool specimens.
    Thomson RB; Haas RA; Thompson JH
    Mayo Clin Proc; 1984 Sep; 59(9):641-2. PubMed ID: 6471921
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Parasites galore: intestinal parasites in British Columbia, 1956-1972 (17 years).
    Bowmer EJ; Whittaker EI
    Can J Public Health; 1973 Oct; 64():Suppl: 83-92. PubMed ID: 4747789
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of fresh versus sodium acetate acetic acid formalin preserved stool specimens for diagnosis of intestinal protozoal infections.
    Mank TG; Zaat JO; Blotkamp J; Polderman AM
    Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis; 1995 Dec; 14(12):1076-81. PubMed ID: 8681983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of unpreserved and preserved stools for the detection and identification of intestinal parasites.
    Scholten TH; Yang J
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1974 Oct; 62(4):563-7. PubMed ID: 4413322
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Enteric parasitology. Interpreting laboratory reports.
    MacPherson DW
    Can Fam Physician; 1995 Oct; 41():1729-31. PubMed ID: 8829583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Rapid staining and mounting of concentrated, intestinal protozoan parasites from MIF-preserved specimens.
    Bawden MP
    Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg; 1993; 87(6):707. PubMed ID: 7507608
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs under veterinary care in Maracaibo, Venezuela.
    Ramírez-Barrios RA; Barboza-Mena G; Muñoz J; Angulo-Cubillán F; Hernández E; González F; Escalona F
    Vet Parasitol; 2004 May; 121(1-2):11-20. PubMed ID: 15110399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infestation. Study of two methods for collection of specimens.
    Garrocho-Sandoval C; Torres-Ruvalcaba A
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1977 Jun; 67(6):603-6. PubMed ID: 559409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A simplified faecal egg count reduction test.
    Vizard AL; Wallace RJ
    Aust Vet J; 1987 Apr; 64(4):109-11. PubMed ID: 3619790
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of the FeKal CON-Trate system with the formalin-ethyl acetate technique for detection of intestinal parasites.
    Long EG; Tsin AT; Robinson BA
    J Clin Microbiol; 1985 Aug; 22(2):210-1. PubMed ID: 4031035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Comparative parasitological stool studies using the methods of Kato & Miura, Lawless, Heine and BIOSEPAR].
    Krause W
    Appl Parasitol; 1994 Feb; 35(1):70-2. PubMed ID: 8173586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Concordance between the zinc sulphate flotation and centrifugal sedimentation methods for the diagnosis of intestinal parasites].
    Inês EJ; Pacheco FT; Pinto MC; Mendes PS; Da Costa-Ribeiro H; Soares NM; Teixeira MC
    Biomedica; 2016 Dec; 36(4):519-524. PubMed ID: 27992978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.