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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Copro prevalence and estimated risk of Entamoeba histolytica in Diarrheic patients at Beni-Suef, Egypt.
    Author: Ibrahim SS, El-Matarawy OM, Ghieth MA, Abu Sarea EY, El-Badry AA.
    Journal: World J Microbiol Biotechnol; 2015 Feb; 31(2):385-90. PubMed ID: 25542044.
    Abstract:
    Amoebiasis diagnosis is usually based on microscopy that cannot differentiate pathogenic E. histolytica from morphologically identical non-pathogenic species. 194 fecal samples were collected from diarrheic &/or dysenteric patients and examined for Entamoeba complex microscopically, E. histolytica/E. dispar coproantigen using ICT and E. histolytica coproantigen using Tech lab E. histolytica II ELISA test. Entamoeba complex trophozoites/cysts, E. histolytica/E. dispar coproantigen and E. histolytica coproantigen were detected in 22.2, 14.4 and 3.6 % of samples, respectively. Microscopy and ICT method had limited sensitivity with poor PPV (9.3 and 7.1 %, respectively) and both slightly agree with ELISA test. The prevalence of E. histolytica was low (3.6 %) in studied individuals and was 14 times lower than non-pathogenic amoebae. E. histolytica detection studied individuals was positively associated with mucoid and bloody stool, which makes them disease predictors. E. histolytica fecal ELISA assay for E. histolytica detection surpassed microscopy and E. histolytica/E. dispar ICT assay. This has highlighted the need for practical non-microscopic detection methods that can differentiate between amoeba infections to avoid unnecessary and possibly harmful therapies and to determine the true prevalence and epidemiology of E. histolytica.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]