Comparison of Methods in the Serologic Diagnosis of Cystic Echinococcosis

Sidre Erganiş, Funda Doğruman Al, Fakhriddin Sarzhanov, Kayhan Çağlar

2024

Full text Open access: Hybrid Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1007/s11686-024-00840-z
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cystic echinococcosis (CE) is caused by the larval form of Echinococcus granulosus. Clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and serologic findings should be evaluated together for the diagnosis of CE. The sensitivity and specificity oalf serologic tests may vary depending on the method used. In this study, we aimed to detect IgG antibodies specific to E. granulosus using indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), indirect fluorescent antibodies (IFA) and western blot (WB) tests. METHODS: In our study, the serum samples of 74 patients sent to our laboratory with suspicion of CE were studied using two different commercial IHA tests, ELISA, IFA and WB test. The test results were evaluated along with radiological findings and histopathological examinations, the latter being the gold standard. RESULTS: = 9.7, p = 0.002). Out of 74 patients, positivity rates for Siemens IHA, Fumouze IHA, ELISA, IFA and WB test were positive as 33 (44.6%), 35 (47.3%), 43 (58.1%), 42 (56.7%) and 38 (51.3%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests were as follows: 66.67 and 2.31% for Siemens IHA; 70.83% and 96.15% for Fumouze IHA; 85.42%, and 88.46% for ELISA; 83.33% and 88.46% for IFA; 72.92% and 88.46% for WB test. CONCLUSION: There were statistically significant differences in between all five methods (p < 0,001). While the tests with the highest specificity was Fumouze IHA, the test with the highest sensitivity was the ELISA test. It was concluded that IHA and ELISA tests were more practical in practice because of their greater applicability.