Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2026
Detection of circulating filarial antigen in paired serum and hydrocele fluid from men with hydrocele in Ranchi, India.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Siddique M, Seema K, Mundu M, Sharma A K, Kumar A, Boipai M, Kumar M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Circulating filarial antigen (CFA) assays complement microscopy for detecting active Wuchereria bancrofti infection. This study compared CFA detection in paired serum and hydrocele-fluid specimens from men with hydrocele in Ranchi, India.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 77 men undergoing hydrocele surgery provided nocturnal blood, serum, and hydrocele-fluid specimens. Blood and hydrocele fluid were examined microscopically for microfilariae. Paired serum and hydrocele-fluid specimens were tested using a commercial human filarial-antigen ELISA. Paired CFA results were compared using the exact McNemar test, and agreement and diagnostic-performance measures were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: Microfilariae were detected in nocturnal blood from 4/77 participants (5.19%) and in no hydrocele-fluid specimen. Serum CFA-ELISA was positive in 9/77 (11.69%), whereas hydrocele-fluid CFA-ELISA was positive in 4/77 (5.19%). Four participants were positive in both matrices, five were serum-positive/hydrocele-fluid-negative, and 68 were negative in both. The paired positivity difference was 6.49 percentage points (95% CI, 0.48-14.32), and the exact McNemar p value was 0.0625. Overall agreement was 93.51% (Cohen kappa, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.266-0.905). Relative to serum CFA-ELISA, hydrocele-fluid testing had 44.44% sensitivity and 100% specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: CFA was detected less frequently in hydrocele fluid than in serum. Hydrocele fluid cannot replace serum for CFA-based diagnosis in this setting.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 77 men undergoing hydrocele surgery provided nocturnal blood, serum, and hydrocele-fluid specimens. Blood and hydrocele fluid were examined microscopically for microfilariae. Paired serum and hydrocele-fluid specimens were tested using a commercial human filarial-antigen ELISA. Paired CFA results were compared using the exact McNemar test, and agreement and diagnostic-performance measures were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: Microfilariae were detected in nocturnal blood from 4/77 participants (5.19%) and in no hydrocele-fluid specimen. Serum CFA-ELISA was positive in 9/77 (11.69%), whereas hydrocele-fluid CFA-ELISA was positive in 4/77 (5.19%). Four participants were positive in both matrices, five were serum-positive/hydrocele-fluid-negative, and 68 were negative in both. The paired positivity difference was 6.49 percentage points (95% CI, 0.48-14.32), and the exact McNemar p value was 0.0625. Overall agreement was 93.51% (Cohen kappa, 0.586; 95% CI, 0.266-0.905). Relative to serum CFA-ELISA, hydrocele-fluid testing had 44.44% sensitivity and 100% specificity.
CONCLUSIONS: CFA was detected less frequently in hydrocele fluid than in serum. Hydrocele fluid cannot replace serum for CFA-based diagnosis in this setting.