1. Diagnosis of Schistosoma infection in non-human animal hosts: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Author
-
Liang S, Ponpetch K, Zhou YB, Guo J, Erko B, Stothard JR, Murad MH, Zhou XN, Satrija F, Webster JP, Remais JV, Utzinger J, and Garba A
- Subjects
- Animals, Feces, Prevalence, Reference Standards, Sensitivity and Specificity, Schistosoma, Schistosomiasis diagnosis
- Abstract
Background: Reliable and field-applicable diagnosis of schistosome infections in non-human animals is important for surveillance, control, and verification of interruption of human schistosomiasis transmission. This study aimed to summarize uses of available diagnostic techniques through a systematic review and meta-analysis., Methodology and Principal Findings: We systematically searched the literature and reports comparing two or more diagnostic tests in non-human animals for schistosome infection. Out of 4,909 articles and reports screened, 19 met our inclusion criteria, four of which were considered in the meta-analysis. A total of 14 techniques (parasitologic, immunologic, and molecular) and nine types of non-human animals were involved in the studies. Notably, four studies compared parasitologic tests (miracidium hatching test (MHT), Kato-Katz (KK), the Danish Bilharziasis Laboratory technique (DBL), and formalin-ethyl acetate sedimentation-digestion (FEA-SD)) with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and sensitivity estimates (using qPCR as the reference) were extracted and included in the meta-analyses, showing significant heterogeneity across studies and animal hosts. The pooled estimate of sensitivity was 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.48) with FEA-SD showing highest sensitivity (0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.00)., Conclusions/significance: Our findings suggest that the parasitologic technique FEA-SD and the molecular technique qPCR are the most promising techniques for schistosome diagnosis in non-human animal hosts. Future studies are needed for validation and standardization of the techniques for real-world field applications., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF