Cargando…
Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review
Faecal egg counting techniques (FECT) form the cornerstone for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites in equines. For this purpose, several flotation, centrifugation, image- and artificial intelligence-based techniques are used, with varying levels of performance. This review aimed to criticall...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8906068/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35284858 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpvbd.2021.100046 |
_version_ | 1784665326041956352 |
---|---|
author | Ghafar, Abdul Abbas, Ghazanfar King, Justine Jacobson, Caroline Hughes, Kristopher J. El-Hage, Charles Beasley, Anne Bauquier, Jenni Wilkes, Edwina J.A. Hurley, John Cudmore, Lucy Carrigan, Peter Tennent-Brown, Brett Nielsen, Martin K. Gauci, Charles G. Beveridge, Ian Jabbar, Abdul |
author_facet | Ghafar, Abdul Abbas, Ghazanfar King, Justine Jacobson, Caroline Hughes, Kristopher J. El-Hage, Charles Beasley, Anne Bauquier, Jenni Wilkes, Edwina J.A. Hurley, John Cudmore, Lucy Carrigan, Peter Tennent-Brown, Brett Nielsen, Martin K. Gauci, Charles G. Beveridge, Ian Jabbar, Abdul |
author_sort | Ghafar, Abdul |
collection | PubMed |
description | Faecal egg counting techniques (FECT) form the cornerstone for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites in equines. For this purpose, several flotation, centrifugation, image- and artificial intelligence-based techniques are used, with varying levels of performance. This review aimed to critically appraise the literature on the assessment and comparison of various coprological techniques and/or modifications of these techniques used for equines and to identify the knowledge gaps and future research directions. We searched three databases for published scientific studies on the assessment and comparison of FECT in equines and included 27 studies in the final synthesis. Overall, the performance parameters of McMaster (81.5%), Mini-FLOTAC® (33.3%) and simple flotation (25.5%) techniques were assessed in most of the studies, with 77.8% of them comparing the performance of at least two or three methods. The detection of strongyle, Parascaris spp. and cestode eggs was assessed for various FECT in 70.4%, 18.5% and 18.5% studies, respectively. A sugar-based flotation solution with a specific gravity of ≥1.2 was found to be the optimal flotation solution for parasitic eggs in the majority of FECT. No uniform or standardised protocol was followed for the comparison of various FECT, and the tested sample size (i.e. equine population and faecal samples) also varied substantially across all studies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to evaluate studies on the comparison of FECT in equines and it highlights important knowledge gaps in the evaluation and comparison of such techniques. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8906068 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89060682022-03-10 Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review Ghafar, Abdul Abbas, Ghazanfar King, Justine Jacobson, Caroline Hughes, Kristopher J. El-Hage, Charles Beasley, Anne Bauquier, Jenni Wilkes, Edwina J.A. Hurley, John Cudmore, Lucy Carrigan, Peter Tennent-Brown, Brett Nielsen, Martin K. Gauci, Charles G. Beveridge, Ian Jabbar, Abdul Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis Review Article Faecal egg counting techniques (FECT) form the cornerstone for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites in equines. For this purpose, several flotation, centrifugation, image- and artificial intelligence-based techniques are used, with varying levels of performance. This review aimed to critically appraise the literature on the assessment and comparison of various coprological techniques and/or modifications of these techniques used for equines and to identify the knowledge gaps and future research directions. We searched three databases for published scientific studies on the assessment and comparison of FECT in equines and included 27 studies in the final synthesis. Overall, the performance parameters of McMaster (81.5%), Mini-FLOTAC® (33.3%) and simple flotation (25.5%) techniques were assessed in most of the studies, with 77.8% of them comparing the performance of at least two or three methods. The detection of strongyle, Parascaris spp. and cestode eggs was assessed for various FECT in 70.4%, 18.5% and 18.5% studies, respectively. A sugar-based flotation solution with a specific gravity of ≥1.2 was found to be the optimal flotation solution for parasitic eggs in the majority of FECT. No uniform or standardised protocol was followed for the comparison of various FECT, and the tested sample size (i.e. equine population and faecal samples) also varied substantially across all studies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to evaluate studies on the comparison of FECT in equines and it highlights important knowledge gaps in the evaluation and comparison of such techniques. Elsevier 2021-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8906068/ /pubmed/35284858 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpvbd.2021.100046 Text en © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Article Ghafar, Abdul Abbas, Ghazanfar King, Justine Jacobson, Caroline Hughes, Kristopher J. El-Hage, Charles Beasley, Anne Bauquier, Jenni Wilkes, Edwina J.A. Hurley, John Cudmore, Lucy Carrigan, Peter Tennent-Brown, Brett Nielsen, Martin K. Gauci, Charles G. Beveridge, Ian Jabbar, Abdul Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review |
title | Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review |
title_full | Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review |
title_short | Comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: A systematic review |
title_sort | comparative studies on faecal egg counting techniques used for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites of equines: a systematic review |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8906068/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35284858 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpvbd.2021.100046 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ghafarabdul comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT abbasghazanfar comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT kingjustine comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT jacobsoncaroline comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT hugheskristopherj comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT elhagecharles comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT beasleyanne comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT bauquierjenni comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT wilkesedwinaja comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT hurleyjohn comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT cudmorelucy comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT carriganpeter comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT tennentbrownbrett comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT nielsenmartink comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT gaucicharlesg comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT beveridgeian comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview AT jabbarabdul comparativestudiesonfaecaleggcountingtechniquesusedforthedetectionofgastrointestinalparasitesofequinesasystematicreview |