| Literature DB >> 21245910 |
J Russell Stothard1, Jose Carlos de Sousa-Figueiredo, Jose C Sousa-Figuereido, Martha Betson, Moses Adriko, Moses Arinaitwe, Candia Rowell, Fred Besiyge, Narcis B Kabatereine.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: in uganda, control of intestinal schistosomiasis with preventive chemotherapy is typically focused towards treatment of school-aged children; the needs of younger children are presently being investigated as in lakeshore communities very young children can be infected. In the context of future epidemiological monitoring, we sought to compare the detection thresholds of available diagnostic tools for Schistosoma mansoni and estimate a likely age of first infection for these children. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21245910 PMCID: PMC3014943 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000938
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Prevalence and intensity of intestinal schistosomiasis and age of first positive by each diagnostic method.
| No. tested | Prevalence (%) | CI95 (%) | Mean epg (of positives) | AFP | |
|
| 242 | 21.9 | 16.9–27.6 | 86.4 | 9 months |
|
| 16.9 | 12.4–22.3 | 9 months | ||
|
| 4.5 | 2.3–8.0 | 3 years | ||
|
| 0.4 | 0.0–2.3 | 5 years | ||
|
| 242 | 42.6 | 36.3–49.1 | NA | 6 months |
|
| 17.8 | 13.2–23.2 | 9 months | ||
|
| 11.6 | 7.8–16.3 | 11 months | ||
|
| 1.7 | 0.5–4.2 | 2 years | ||
|
| 242 | 45.9 | 39.5–52.4 | NA | 6 months |
|
| 15.3 | 11.0–20.5 | 6 months | ||
|
| 19.4 | 14.6–25.0 | 1 year | ||
|
| 11.2 | 7.5–15.8 | 9 months | ||
|
| 242 | 24.4 | 19.1–30.3 | NA | NA |
|
| 242 | 47.5 | 41.1–54.0 | NA | NA |
Age of first positive.
*Note not all 242 children were examined with percoll and FLOTAC (see methodology).
Figure 1Barchart of the prevalence of intestinal schistosomiasis by each diagnostic technique (as well as pooling techniques, DEDM* representing results obtained from Kato-Katz, Percoll and FLOTAC methods) for the examined children.
Note that the DEDMs under estimate infection prevalence and the addition of ADM to DEDMs/IEDM data did not further increase cumulative infection prevalence.
Figure 2Comparisons of ADM and DEDM.
Rectangular bar chart representing egg infection intensity classifications (as calculated by Kato-Katz) versus reaction intensity of the ADM (visual strength of the CCA urine dipstick test band). Boxplot of the egg faecal epg against ADM reaction intensity shows a positive increasing association.
Figure 3Comparisons of IEDM and DEDM.
Rectangular bar chart representing egg infection intensity classifications (as calculated by Kato-Katz) versus reaction intensity of the IEDM (visual strength of the SEA-ELISA test well). Boxplot of the egg faecal epg against IEDM reaction intensity shows a positive increasing association.
Figure 4Comparisons of ADM and IEDM.
Rectangular bar chart representing ADM intensity classifications (visual strength of the CCA urine dipstick test band) versus reaction intensity of the IEDM (visual strength of the SEA-ELISA test well). Boxplot of the IEDM reaction intensity against ADM shows a positive increasing association but the relationship is less clear-cut than that shown in & .
Comparison of diagnostic scores by ADM and IEDM using DEDM (all) as ‘gold standard’.
| Diagnostic test | Diagnostic target | N | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
| (%,CI 95) | (%,CI 95) | (%,CI 95) | (%,CI 95) | |||
|
|
| 242 | 59.3 | 95.6 | 81.4 | 87.9 |
| (45.8–71.9) | (91.6–98.1) | (66.6–91.6) | (82.6–92.1) | |||
|
|
| 242 | 81.4 | 69.9 | 46.6 | 92.1 |
| (69.1–96.3) | (62.7–76.5 | (36.7–56.7) | (86.3–96.0) | |||
|
|
| 242 | 93.2 | 69.4 | 49.5 | 96.9 |
| (83.5–98.1) | (62.2–76.0) | (40.0–59.2) | (92.4–99.2) | |||
|
| 242 | 86 | 62.8 | 33.3 | 95.4 | |
| (72.1–94.7) | (56.0–69.5) | (24.7–42.9) | (90.3–98.3) | |||
|
| 242 | 60.2 | 64.7 | 55.9 | 68.7 | |
| (50.1–69.7) | (56.2–72.7) | (46.1–65.3) | (60.0–76.5) |