| Literature DB >> 27335845 |
Mengistu Endris1, Zinaye Tekeste1, Wossenseged Lemma1, Afework Kassu1.
Abstract
Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the operational characteristics (sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV)) of wet mount, formol-ether concentration (FEC), and Kato-Katz techniques for the determination of intestinal parasitic infections. Method. A total of 354 faecal specimens were collected from students in Northwest Ethiopia and screened with Kato-Katz, wet mount, and FEC for the presence of intestinal parasitic infection. Since a gold standard test is not available for detection of intestinal parasites, the combined results from the three methods were used as diagnostic gold standard. Result. The prevalences of intestinal parasites using the single wet mount, FEC, and Kato-Katz thick smear techniques were 38.4%, 57.1%, and 59%, respectively. Taking the combined results of three techniques as a standard test for intestinal parasitic infection, the sensitivity and negative predictive value of Kato-Katz is 81.0% (confidence interval (CI) = 0.793-0.810) and 66.2% (CI = 0.63-0.622), respectively. The FEC detected 56 negative samples that were positive by the gold standard, indicating 78.3% (CI = 0.766-0.783) and 63.2% (CI = 0.603-63) sensitivity and NPV, respectively. Furthermore, Kato-Katz detects 113 cases that were negative by a single wet mount. The κ agreement between the wet mount and Kato-Katz methods for the diagnosis of Ascaris lumbricoides and hookworm was substantial (κ = 0.61 for Ascaris lumbricoides, κ = 0.65 for hookworm).Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 27335845 PMCID: PMC4890854 DOI: 10.5402/2013/180439
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Parasitol ISSN: 2314-4076
Wet mount, Kato-Katz, and FEC techniques results compared to the gold standard from Atse Fasil General Elementary School, Northwest Ethiopia, March 10–June 30, 2008.
| Method | Result | Gold standard | Total (%) | NPV | 95% CI | Sensitivity | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive (%) | Negative (%) | |||||||
| Wet mount | Positive | 136 (38.4) | 0 | 136 (38.4) | 44.0% | 0.42–0.44 | 52.7% | 0.51–0.53 |
| Negative | 122 (34.5) | 96 (27.1) | 218 (61.6) | |||||
| FEC | Positive | 202 (57.1) | 0 | 202 (57.1) | 63.2% | 0.60–0.63 | 78.3% | 0.76–0.78 |
| Negative | 56 (15.8) | 96 (27.1) | 152 (42.9) | |||||
| Kato-Katz | Positive | 209 (59.0) | 0 | 209 (59.0) | 66.2% | 0.63–0.62 | 81.0% | 0.79–0.81 |
| Negative | 49 (13.8) | 96 (27.1) | 145 (41.0) | |||||
FEC: formol-ether concentration, NPV: negative predictive value.
Wet mount, Kato-Katz, and FEC techniques results compared to the gold standard by species of common helminthes from students of Atse Fasil General Elementary School, Northwest Ethiopia, March 10–June 30, 2008.
| Parasite | Technique | Infected students no. (%) | NPV (95% CI) | Sensitivity (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Gold standard | 154 (43.5) | ||
| Kato katz | 148 (41.8) | 97.1% (0.95–0.97) | 96.1% (0.94–0.96) | |
| FEC | 90 (25.4) | 75.8% (0.74–0.75) | 58.4% (0.55–0.58) | |
| Wet mount | 34 (9.6) | 62.5% (0.61–0.62) | 22.1% (0.194–0.221) | |
|
| ||||
|
| Gold standard | 102 (28.8) | ||
| Kato-Katz | 95 (26.8) | 97.3% (0.95–0.97) | 93.1% (0.89–0.93) | |
| FEC | 83 (23.4) | 93.0% (0.92–0.93) | 81.4% (0.77–0.81) | |
| Wet mount | 53 (15) | 83.7% (0.82–0.83) | 52.0% (0.48–0.52) | |
|
| ||||
|
| Gold standard | 64 (18.1) | ||
| Kato-Katz | 58 (16.4) | 98.0% (0.97–0.98) | 90.6% (0.85–0.91) | |
| FEC | 37 (10.5) | 91.5% (0.90–0.92) | 57.8% (0.52–0.58) | |
| Wet mount | 8 (2.3) | 83.8% (0.83–0.84) | 12.5% (0.07–0.12) | |
|
| ||||
| Hook worm | Gold standard | 29 (8.2) | ||
| Kato-Katz | 20 (5.6) | 97.3% (0.96–0.97) | 69.0% (0.57–0.69) | |
| FEC | 21 (5.9) | 97.6% (0.97–0.98) | 72.4% (0.60–0.72) | |
| Wet mount | 11 (3.1) | 94.8% (0.94–0.95) | 37.9% (0.27–0.38) | |
FEC: formol-ether concentration, NPV: negative predictive value.
Agreement between a single Kato-Katz and FEC technique for the diagnosis of each intestinal parasite in students from Atse Fasil General Elementary School, Northwest Ethiopia, March 10–June 30, 2008.
| Parasite | FEC | Kato-Katz | Total |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | ||||
|
| Positive | 85 | 5 | 85 | 0.58 ( |
| Negative | 62 | 202 | 264 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 147 | 207 | 354 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Positive | 75 | 8 | 83 | 0.80 ( |
| Negative | 18 | 253 | 271 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 93 | 261 | 354 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Positive | 31 | 6 | 37 | 0.59 ( |
| Negative | 28 | 289 | 317 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 59 | 295 | 354 | ||
|
| |||||
| Hook worm | Positive | 12 | 9 | 21 | 0.57 ( |
| Negative | 7 | 326 | 333 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 19 | 335 | 354 | ||
FEC: formol-ether concentration.
Agreement between a single Kato-Katz and wet mount for the diagnosis of each intestinal parasite in students from Atse Fasil General Elementary School, Northwest Ethiopia, March 10–June 30, 2008.
| Parasite | Wet mount | Kato-Katz | Total |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | ||||
|
| Positive | 33 | 1 | 34 | 0.25 ( |
| Negative | 114 | 206 | 320 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 147 | 207 | 354 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Positive | 50 | 3 | 53 | 0.61 ( |
| Negative | 43 | 258 | 301 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 93 | 261 | 354 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Positive | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0.21 ( |
| Negative | 51 | 295 | 346 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 59 | 295 | 354 | ||
|
| |||||
| Hook worm | Positive | 10 | 1 | 11 | 0.65 ( |
| Negative | 9 | 334 | 343 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 19 | 335 | 354 | ||