1992
DOI: 10.1016/0169-4758(92)90144-q
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Underestimation of Schistosoma mansoni prevalences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
169
0
7

Year Published

2000
2000
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 248 publications
(182 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
6
169
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Due to time and financial constraints, only one stool sample per person could be examined. Repeated stool analysis with the Kato-Katz technique has shown to substantially increase sensitivity (de Vlas and Gryseels, 1992;Marti and Koella, 1993); hence we can assume that the 'true' prevalence may be higher than assessed in the present study.…”
Section: Prevalence and Impact Of Opisthorchis Viverrinimentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Due to time and financial constraints, only one stool sample per person could be examined. Repeated stool analysis with the Kato-Katz technique has shown to substantially increase sensitivity (de Vlas and Gryseels, 1992;Marti and Koella, 1993); hence we can assume that the 'true' prevalence may be higher than assessed in the present study.…”
Section: Prevalence and Impact Of Opisthorchis Viverrinimentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Assessment of S. mansoni infection using a single KatoKatz slide per individual collected on a single day could be a limitation of this study as some light infections could have been missed [35,42] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The observed prevalence of 42% could be an underestimation of the actual prevalence of the infection in this area, because we used the Kato-Katz method, which has shown low sensitivity when a single stool sample is obtained. 18,19 This study also showed that S. mansoni-related liver pathology was relatively high in this population compared with that observed elsewhere. 20,21 The prevalence of infection in our study population followed a convex distribution: peaking at ages 15-18 years and declining thereafter.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…18,39 Studies have shown that this method is less sensitive and less accurate when one stool sample is used, resulting in an underestimation of the prevalence. 18 The low sensitivity using the Kato-Katz method is attributed to a number of reasons, such as daily variation in egg output and inability to detect light infections. 19,40 Sensitivity can be enhanced by examining multiple stool samples and smears.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%