4.4 Article

Evaluation of circulating cathodic antigen (CCA) strip for diagnosis of urinary schistosomiasis in Hassoba school children, Afar, Ethiopia

Journal

PARASITE
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 69-75

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/parasite/2008151069

Keywords

urinary schistosomiasis; diagnosis; circulating cathodic antigen strip; Ethiopia

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A total of 206 urine samples collected from Hassoba Elementary schoolchildren, Afar, Ethiopia, a low Schistosoma haemotobium endemic setting, was diagnosed to evaluate the performance of CCA strip using double references, urine filtration technique and urinalysis dipstick (Combur (10) under bar Test (R)) that detect schistosome eggs and blood in urine, respectively. The former was used as a gold standard reference method. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for the CCA were 52 %, 63.8 %, 56.7 % and 59 % respectively, with reference to urine filtration technique whereas these parameters were 50.4 %, 62.4 %, 55.6 % and 57.5 % respectively, with reference to Combur (10) under bar Test (R). 47 S. haematobium egg-positive children were found negative by CCA strip while 38 egg-negative children were found positive by CCA strip. Moreover, among the pre-tests done in duplicate, inconsistent results were also recorded. Assays were also compared with regard to the cost of equipment and reagents, speed and simplicity of use. Though CCA strip was found to be rapid and could be performed with minimal training, it was found to be expensive (US $ 4.95 per test) to use it for large-scale field use even if its diagnostic value would have been satisfactory. Further development and standardization of the CCA strip are required for its applicability for field use. It is also recommended that its cost per strip should be substantially cut down if it is to be used in poor schistosomiasis endemic countries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available