Comparison of the complete filtration method using an automated feces analyzer with three manual methods for stool examinations

Aiadsakun, Peechana; Sriwimol, Wilaiwan; Thongbun, Nannapas; Rui-on, Bancha; Thiparaksaphan, Kulathida; Phainuice, Churai; Nuhom, Chonnikarn

doi:10.1016/j.mimet.2021.106394

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it has been reported to have low sensitivity because of the small stool sample used (0.2 g) [ 15 – 18 ]. Both Kato’s thick smear method and the formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT) have demonstrated higher sensitivities than the direct wet smear method [ 19 ]. Despite being considered the gold standard for detecting intestinal parasites, microscopic detection is time-consuming, tedious, labor-intensive, and heavily reliant on the expertise and training of microscopists [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High-throughput detection of parasites and ova in stool using the fully automatic digital feces analyzer, orienter model fa280

Boonyong,

Hunnangkul,

Vijit

et al. 2024

Parasites Vectors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Intestinal parasitic infections can harm health by causing malnutrition, anemia, impaired growth and cognitive development, and alterations in microbiota composition and immune responses. Therefore, it is crucial to examine stool samples to diagnose parasitic infections. However, the traditional microscopic detection method is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and dependent on the expertise and training of microscopists. Hence, there is a need for a low-complexity, high-throughput, and cost-effective alternative to labor-intensive microscopic examinations. Methods This study aimed to compare the performance of a fully automatic digital feces analyzer, Orienter Model FA280 (People’s Republic of China) with that of the formalin-ethyl acetate concentration technique (FECT). We assessed and compared the agreement between the FA280 and the FECT for parasite detection and species identification in stool samples. The first part of the study analyzed 200 fresh stool samples for parasite detection using the FECT and FA280. With the FA280, the automatic feces analyzer performed the testing, and the digital microscope images were uploaded and automatically evaluated using an artificial intelligence (AI) program. Additionally, a skilled medical technologist conducted a user audit of the FA280 findings. The second set of samples comprised 800 preserved stool samples (preserved in 10% formalin). These samples were examined for parasites using the FECT and FA280 with a user audit. Results For the first set of stool samples, there was no statistically significant difference in the pairwise agreements between the FECT and the FA280 with a user audit (exact binomial test, P = 1). However, there were statistically significant differences between the pairwise agreements for the FECT and the FA280 with the AI report (McNemar’s test, P < 0.001). The agreement for the species identification of parasites between the FA280 with AI report and FECT showed fair agreement (overall agreement = 75.5%, kappa [κ] = 0.367, 95% CI 0.248–0.486). On the other hand, the user audit for the FA280 and FECT showed perfect agreement (overall agreement = 100%, κ = 1.00, 95% CI 1.00–1.00). For the second set of samples, the FECT detected significantly more positive samples for parasites than the FA280 with a user audit (McNemar’s test, P < 0.001). The disparity in results may be attributed to the FECT using significantly larger stool samples than those used by the FA280. The larger sample size used by the FECT potentially contributed to the higher parasite detection rate. Regarding species identification, there was strong agreement between the FECT and the FA280 with a user audit for helminths (κ = 0.857, 95% CI 0.82–0.894). Similarly, there was perfect agreement for the species identification of protozoa between the FECT and the FA280 with user audit (κ = 1.00, 95% CI 1.00–1.00). Conclusions Although the FA280 has advantages in terms of simplicity, shorter performance time, and reduced contamination in the laboratory, there are some limitations to consider. These include a higher cost per sample testing and a lower sensitivity compared to the FECT. However, the FA280 enables rapid, convenient, and safe stool examination of parasitic infections. Graphical Abstract

show abstract