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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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