The Brief Case: Incidental Finding of Cystic Echinococcosis during Evaluation for Hepatitis

Hermelin, Daniela; Demske, Megan; Chamberland, Robin R.; Sotelo‐Avila, Cirilo

doi:10.1128/jcm.01551-18

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consideration of another diagnostic test utilizing crude hydatid cyst fl uid (HCF) from a specimen, such as Here the advantages of cytopathological tests, sensitivities, and specificities reside in the detection of true positive subjects, whereas in serological tests sensitivities and specificities are false positives due to cross-reactions. These cross-reactivities have been observed in humans infected with parasitic diseases such as cysticercosis (Hermelin et al, 2019). Checking the false negative's importance, cytopathological tests are equivalent to ELISA but superior to IHA and immunoelectrophoresis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of swine echinococcosis cytopathological tests and challenges for a differential diagnosis: slaughterhouse data

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Echinococcosis disease shows clinical signs similar to many diseases. Hence we report cases that need to be confirmed using appropriate tests. A confirmatory study has been conducted to assess the accuracy of two cytopathological tests, with the histopathology test as the reference standard. The first cytopathological test evaluates the Ziehl Neelsen staining with an epifluorescence microscope (cytopath 1). The second cytopathological test uses the same staining followed by a transmitted light microscope examination (cytopath 2). Of a total of 2524 inspected pigs, 101 suspected cases of echinococcosis were detected, of which 67 were found positive with the two cytopathological tests and the histopathological one. The specificity of cytopath 1 (100 % [95 % CI 100 – 100]) and cytopath 2 (100 % [95 % CI 100;100]) were similar, as well as their respective positive predictive values: 100 % [95 % CI 100 – 100] vs. 100 % [95 % CI 100 – 100]. The sensitivity of cytopath 1 is 79.66 % [95 % CI 69.39 – 89.93], while cytopath 2 equals 66.10 % [95 % CI 54.02 – 78.18]. The difference in sensitivity of both tests was not significant. Negative predictive values found for cytopath 1, and cytopath 2 were 40 [95 % CI 18.53 – 61.47] and 28.57 [95 % CI 11.84 – 45.3], leading to the Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) Model estimate for an odds ratio of 1.4 [95 % CI 0.41 – 5.2], p = 0.06. Cytopath 1 and cytopath 2 are equivalent in terms of specificity (100 % [95 % CI 100 – 100] vs. 100 % [95 % CI 100;100]) and positive predictive value (100 % [95 % CI 100 – 100]. Cytopath 1 is more sensitive than cytopath 2 but not significant (79.66 % [ 95 % CI 69.39 – 89.93] vs. 66.10 % [95 % CI 54.02 – 78.18]). However, the negative predictive value of cytopath 1 is better than that of cytopath 2: 40 % [95 % CI 18.53 – 61.47] vs. 28.57 % [95 % CI 11.84 – 45.3].

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%