Cited by 52Parasitic infections in humans and animalsHelminth infection and controlParasitic Infections and Diagnostics

Segmental Sedimentation and Counting Technique (SSCT): An adaptable method for qualitative diagnosis of Echinococcus multilocularis in fox intestines

Umhang, G., Woronoff-Rhen, N., Combes, B., Boué, F.·2011·Experimental Parasitology

Abstract

A modified Segmental Sedimentation and Counting Technique (SSCT) to examine the presence of Echinococcus multilocularis helminths in segments of fox (Vulpes vulpes) intestine is described and compared to the "gold standard", SCT. Out of the 358 intestines collected, 117 were E. multilocularis positive. Using SSCT methods we compare the sensitivity of individual or pairs of segments to establish a tradeoff between saving time and the reliability of the diagnosis, especially in areas with low infection intensities. The results show that the analysis of segment S4 associated with segment S1 or S2 give 98.3% sensitivity, with specificity close to 100%. Based on our results and the time saved, we recommend using SSCT for routine examination of fox intestines for large epidemiological studies, particularly where the endemic prevalence of E. multilocularis is low or unknown.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.exppara.2011.01.004

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The occurrence of E. multilocularis in the anterior part in one intestine among 117 positive intestines in the SSCT study was probably due to the early infection stage, just after ingestion of larvae, when tapeworms can only be observed in the anterior part before they reach their typical location.

    “This probably is due to the early infection stage, just after ingestion of larvae, when tapeworms can only be observed in the anterior part of the intestine before they reach their typical location [29].”
  • The posterior part of the small intestine is considered a predilection site for E. multilocularis.

    “The posterior part of the small intestine is considered a predilection site for E. multilocularis [28,29,32].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Umhang, G., Woronoff-Rhen, N., Combes, B., & Boué, F.
Affiliations
Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail (FR)
Corresponding author
Boué, F.
Venue
Experimental Parasitology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
128
Issue
1
Pages
57-60
ISSN
0014-4894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968500895
Cited by
52
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental Parasitology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Parasitic infections in humans and animals
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Helminth infection and control
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Parasitology › Parasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Keywords
Echinococcus multilocularis, foxes, red fox, qualitative diagnosis, intestinal helminths, diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, disease surveillance, alveolar echinococcosis
MeSH terms
Animals, Echinococcosis, Foxes, Intestinal Diseases, Parasitic, Intestines, Sensitivity and Specificity, Echinococcus multilocularis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review