↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Four Diagnostic Methods for Detection and Relative Quantification of Haemonchus contortus Eggs in Feces Samples

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Four Diagnostic Methods for Detection and Relative Quantification of Haemonchus contortus Eggs in Feces Samples
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00239
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Ljungström, Lynsey Melville, Philip John Skuce, Johan Höglund

Abstract

We compared four methods for identification of Haemonchus contortus eggs. With increased trade in animals within and between countries and continents, it has become important to correctly identify H. contortus eggs in fecal samples. To validate the outcome of diagnostic tests, sheep feces (n = 38) were collected from naturally infected flocks in Sweden. Subsamples were analyzed with (a) McMaster egg counting; (b) differential counting of eggs after staining with peanut agglutinin (PNA); (c) detection of DNA following amplification by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR); and (d) loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP). Differences between similar tests (microscopic and molecular) and SD (±SD) were analyzed with Bland-Altman plots and Spearman rank correlation. Strongylid egg counts ranged from 200 to 12,100 eggs per gram (epg) (mean epg ± SD = 1,278 ± 2,049). Microscopy showed presence of H. contortus eggs in 27 (73%) unstained samples and in 28 (76%) samples stained with PNA, whereas 29 samples (78%) tested positive in LAMP and 34 (91%) in qPCR analysis. The cycle threshold (Ct) values with LAMP ranged between 13 and 38 (mean ± SD = 21 ± 7), and those in qPCR between 25 and 49 (mean ± SD = 33 ± 6). In the LAMP and qPCR analyses, seven (19%) and three (8%) samples, respectively, had a cycle threshold (Ct) >35, whereas no reactions were observed in eight (22%) and three (8%) samples, respectively. There was good agreement between the diagnostic tests based on microscopic examination and DNA detection, although the molecular tests were more sensitive. The bias between the microscopy methods (-4.2 ± 11) was smaller than for the molecular tests (-9.8 ± 10). The observed ranking in terms of test sensitivity was: McMaster counting by conventional microscopy < PNA < LAMP < qPCR. In conclusion, H. contortus can be identified by McMaster counting, without major mistakes regarding false positive results. However, molecular methods provide the capacity to diagnose H. contortus eggs with increased accuracy. This is essential when animals are investigated in quarantine or in studies evaluating anthelmintic treatment efficacy. These methods could also be applied to fecal samples from wildlife to investigate nematode transmission between wildlife and livestock.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 26 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 10 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 30 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,110,734
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#988
of 6,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,684
of 441,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#25
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.