Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of nine immunoassay kits (enzyme immunoassay and direct fluorescence) for detection of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum in human fecal specimens

Open access
Garcia, L S, Shimizu, R Y·1997·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

It is well known that Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum can cause severe symptoms in humans, particularly those who are immunologically compromised. Immunoassay procedures offer both increased sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional staining methods. These reagents are also helpful when screening large numbers of patients, particularly in an outbreak situation or when screening patients with minimal symptoms. The data obtained by using 9 diagnostic kits were compared: direct fluorescent-antibody assay (DFA) kits (TechLab Giardia/Crypto IF kit, TechLab Crypto IF kit, and Meridian Merifluor Cryptosporidium/Giardia) and enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kits (Alexon ProSpecT Giardia EZ Microplate Assay, Alexon ProSpecT Cryptosporidium Microplate Assay, Cambridge Giardia lamblia Antigen Microwell ELISA, Meridian Premier Giardia lamblia, Meridian Premier Cryptosporidium, TechLab Giardia CELISA, Trend Giardia lamblia EIA). The test with the Meridian Merifluor Cryptosporidium/Giardia kit was used as the reference method. In various combinations, 60 specimens positive for Giardia, 60 specimens positive for Cryptosporidium, 40 specimens positive for a Giardia-Cryptosporidium mix, and 50 negative fecal specimens were tested. Different species (nine protozoa, three coccidia, one microsporidium, five nematodes, three cestodes, and one trematode) were included in the negative specimens. The sensitivity of EIA for Giardia ranged from 94% (Alexon) to 99% (Trend and Cambridge); the specificity was 100% with all EIA kits tested. The sensitivity of EIA for Cryptosporidium ranged from 98% (Alexon) to 99% (Meridian Premier); specificities were 100%. All DFA results were in agreement, with 100% sensitivity and specificity; however, the TechLab reagents resulted in fluorescence intensity that was generally one level below that seen with the reagents used in the reference method. In addition to sensitivity and specificity, factors such as cost, simplicity, ease of interpretation of results (color, intensity of fluorescence), equipment, available personnel, and number of tests ordered are also important considerations prior to kit selection.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.35.6.1526-1529.1997

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
Garcia, L. S., & Shimizu, R. Y.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1997-06
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
1526-1529
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2137339115
Cited by
332
References
10
FWCI
6.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of nine immunoassay kits (enzyme immunoassay and direct fluorescence) for detection of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum in human fecal specimens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.35.6.1526-1529.1997
The paper
Garcia, L. S., & Shimizu, R. Y. (1997). Evaluation of nine immunoassay kits (enzyme immunoassay and direct fluorescence) for detection of Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium parvum in human fecal specimens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.35.6.1526-1529.1997

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.