PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022
Diagnosis of Schistosoma infection in non-human animal hosts: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liang Song, Ponpetch Keerati, Zhou Yi-Biao, Guo Jiagang, Erko Berhanu, Stothard J Russell, Murad M Hassan, Zhou Xiao-Nong, Satrija Fadjar, Webster Joanne P, Remais Justin V, Utzinger Jürg, Garba Amadou
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Reliable and field-applicable diagnosis of schistosome infections in non-human animals is important for surveillance, control, and verification of interruption of human schistosomiasis transmission. This study aimed to summarize uses of available diagnostic techniques through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We systematically searched the literature and reports comparing two or more diagnostic tests in non-human animals for schistosome infection. Out of 4,909 articles and reports screened, 19 met our inclusion criteria, four of which were considered in the meta-analysis. A total of 14 techniques (parasitologic, immunologic, and molecular) and nine types of non-human animals were involved in the studies. Notably, four studies compared parasitologic tests (miracidium hatching test (MHT), Kato-Katz (KK), the Danish Bilharziasis Laboratory technique (DBL), and formalin-ethyl acetate sedimentation-digestion (FEA-SD)) with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and sensitivity estimates (using qPCR as the reference) were extracted and included in the meta-analyses, showing significant heterogeneity across studies and animal hosts. The pooled estimate of sensitivity was 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.48) with FEA-SD showing highest sensitivity (0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.00).
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings suggest that the parasitologic technique FEA-SD and the molecular technique qPCR are the most promising techniques for schistosome diagnosis in non-human animal hosts. Future studies are needed for validation and standardization of the techniques for real-world field applications.
METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We systematically searched the literature and reports comparing two or more diagnostic tests in non-human animals for schistosome infection. Out of 4,909 articles and reports screened, 19 met our inclusion criteria, four of which were considered in the meta-analysis. A total of 14 techniques (parasitologic, immunologic, and molecular) and nine types of non-human animals were involved in the studies. Notably, four studies compared parasitologic tests (miracidium hatching test (MHT), Kato-Katz (KK), the Danish Bilharziasis Laboratory technique (DBL), and formalin-ethyl acetate sedimentation-digestion (FEA-SD)) with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and sensitivity estimates (using qPCR as the reference) were extracted and included in the meta-analyses, showing significant heterogeneity across studies and animal hosts. The pooled estimate of sensitivity was 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.48) with FEA-SD showing highest sensitivity (0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.00).
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings suggest that the parasitologic technique FEA-SD and the molecular technique qPCR are the most promising techniques for schistosome diagnosis in non-human animal hosts. Future studies are needed for validation and standardization of the techniques for real-world field applications.