4.2 Article

The value of ultrasonography alone in screening surveys of cystic echinococcosis in children in Turkey

期刊

PARASITOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 273-275

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parint.2006.07.002

关键词

cystic echinococcosis; Echinococcus granulosus; epidemiology; ultrasonography; serology; chest microfilm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A total of 1205 primary school children were examined for cystic echinococcosis in five villages of Manisa, Turkey, to evaluate the efficacy of diagnostic methods of this infection in community-based screening surveys. Six hundred and thirty children from three villages, examined by a portable ultrasound scanner, chest microfilm and serological methods (ELISA, indirect hemagglutination) in our previous study, were designated as Study Group 1; and 575 children, from two adjacent villages, examined by ultrasonography alone in the present study, were designated as Study Group 2. In Study Group 1, hepatic cystic echinococcosis was detected in two cases (0.3%) by ultrasonography, while 43 (8.9%) and 49 (10.1%) cases were found to be positive for cystic echinococcosis by ELISA and indirect hemagglutination, respectively. Three of 575 children (0.5%) were diagnosed with cystic echinococcosis (two hepatic and one renal involvement) by ultrasonography alone in Study Group 2; and lung lesions were later detected in both cases with liver involvement by chest radiography. Our results suggested that serological tests may be beneficial in suspected cases for confirmation and differential diagnosis, but have some drawbacks, such as discrepancy in results and high false seropositivity rates. Chest microfilm is not easy in field studies and exposure to X-ray is undesirable. As a reliable, simple, inexpensive and rapid technique, ultrasonography alone is recommended to be used in community-based screening surveys for cystic echinococcosis with confirmatory tests for suspected cases found during the screening program. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据