Cited by 28Parasitic infections in humans and animalsHelminth infection and controlParasitic Infections and Diagnostics

Detection of Echinococcus multilocularis in Foxes: Evaluation of a Protocol of the Intestinal Scraping Technique

Open access
Tackmann, K., Mattis, R., Conraths, F. J.·2006·Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series B

Abstract

The intestinal scraping technique (IST) is widely used for the detection of definitive hosts infected with Echinococcus multilocularis. The sensitivity of the method has been questioned in recent years. Several variations of the technique are used that may differ in their performance. We therefore estimated the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the IST protocol used in our lab by examining the small intestines of 210 E. multilocularis-infected foxes and 294 foxes that had tested negative for this parasite. To this end, IST was first performed on 48 and 294 intestines from infected and uninfected foxes respectively, followed by an examination of the entire remaining mucosa of the small intestine to discover any infections with E. multilocularis that had not been detected by IST. The point estimate for diagnostic sensitivity was 100%. Five different classes of infection intensities were formed. The lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals ranged between 76.8% and 92.6% depending on the number of samples analysed per class. When the small intestines of another 162 infected foxes were examined by IST and the results recorded separately for the anterior, middle and posterior third of the small intestine, a strong preference of E. multilocularis for the posterior third was observed. For epidemiological purposes, it may thus be possible to restrict routine investigations to the posterior portion of the small intestine. By contrast, a reduction of the number of slides exa…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1439-0450.2006.01003.x

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tackmann, K., Mattis, R., & Conraths, F. J.
Affiliations
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (DE)
Corresponding author
Conraths, F. J.
Venue
Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series B
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09-28
Volume
53
Issue
8
Pages
395-398
ISSN
0931-1793 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2047296526
Cited by
28
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series B (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OpenAgrar (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
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, alveolar echinococcosis, foxes, diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, small intestine, infection intensity, definitive host, parasite detection
MeSH terms
Animals, Echinococcosis, Foxes, Intestine, Small, Sensitivity and Specificity, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures, 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