13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Two Real-Time PCR Assays Targeting Ribosomal Sequences for the Identification of Cystoisospora belli in Human Stool Samples

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cystoisospora (C.) belli is a coccidian parasite associated with acute or chronic gastroenteritis in immunocompromised patients. Dissatisfactory sensitivity of microscopy as the diagnostic standard approach has been described. Here, we comparatively evaluated two real-time PCRs targeting ribosomal RNA gene sequences of C. belli in stool in a test comparison without a reference standard applying latent class analysis. Therefore, 1000 stool samples from Ghanaian HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) patients (n = 905) as well as military returnees from the tropics (n = 95) were assessed by both assays in parallel. After the exclusion of 33 samples showing PCR inhibition, 29 and 33 positive results were recorded with the 5.8S rRNA gene/ITS-2 sequence PCR and the ITS-2 sequence PCR, respectively, resulting in an accuracy-adjusted prevalence of 3.2%. Nearly perfect agreement between both assays was indicated by Fleiss’ kappa of 0.933 with sensitivity and specificity of 92.8% and 100% as well as 100% and 99.8% for the 5.8S rRNA gene/ITS-2 sequence PCR and the ITS-2 sequence PCR, respectively. Both assays proved to be suitable for the diagnosis of C. belli in human stool samples with slightly better sensitivity of the ITS-2 sequence assay, while the 5.8S rRNA gene/ITS-2 sequence PCR may be considered for confirmatory testing.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

            Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Microscopic diagnosis of sodium acetate-acetic acid-formalin-fixed stool samples for helminths and intestinal protozoa: a comparison among European reference laboratories.

              The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of different European reference laboratories in diagnosing helminths and intestinal protozoa, using an ether-concentration method applied to sodium acetate-acetic acid-formalin (SAF)-preserved faecal samples. In total, 102 stool specimens were analysed during a cross-sectional parasitological survey in urban farming communities in Côte d'Ivoire. Five SAF-preserved faecal samples were prepared from each specimen and forwarded to the participating reference laboratories, processed and examined under a microscope adhering to a standard operating procedure (SOP). Schistosoma mansoni (cumulative prevalence: 51.0%) and hookworm (cumulative prevalence: 39.2%) were the predominant helminths. There was excellent agreement (kappa > 0.8; p < 0.001) among the reference laboratories for the diagnosis of S. mansoni, hookworm, Trichuris trichiura and Ascaris lumbricoides. Moderate agreement (kappa = 0.54) was found for Hymenolepis nana, and lesser agreement was observed for other, less prevalent helminths. The predominant intestinal protozoa were Entamoeba coli (median prevalence: 67.6%), Blastocystis hominis (median prevalence: 55.9%) and Entamoeba histolytica/Entamoeba dispar (median prevalence: 47.1%). Substantial agreement among reference laboratories was found for E. coli (kappa = 0.69), but only fair or moderate agreement was found for other Entamoeba species, Giardia intestinalis and Chilomastix mesnili. There was only poor agreement for B. hominis, Isospora belli and Trichomonas intestinalis. In conclusion, although common helminths were reliably diagnosed by European reference laboratories, there was only moderate agreement between centres for pathogenic intestinal protozoa. Continued external quality assessment and the establishment of a formal network of reference laboratories is necessary to further enhance both accuracy and uniformity in parasite diagnosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                PATHCD
                Pathogens
                Pathogens
                MDPI AG
                2076-0817
                August 2021
                August 19 2021
                : 10
                : 8
                : 1053
                Article
                10.3390/pathogens10081053
                31bbf7d2-99ea-45ce-8f19-3322d6ea1862
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article