Comparative assessment of efficiency quantitative methods of coproovoscopy
Abstract
The comparative assessment of efficiency of the coprologic methods of diag-nosis of helminthosis is given: MakMaster, Kotelnikov–Hrenov and Mini Parasep concentrator at an artificial laying of eggs in feces. The description of these meth-ods of diagnostics is in detail provided. It isn't established differences in efficiency of methods of MakMaster and Kotelnikov–Hrenov with use of the calculating chamber which appeared more effective, than the Mini Parasep concentrator. At a laying of 20 expl. of eggs of helminths in 1 g of feces of egg aren't found in 60 % of tests by MakMaster's method, in 63 % – by method Kotelnikov–Hrenov and in 72 % – by Mini Parasep method. At concentration of 50 eggs in 1 g of feces Makmaster and Kotelnikov-Hrenov's method didn't find eggs in 36 % of tests, and by Mini Parasep method – in 42 % of tests. At concentration of 200 and 300 eggs in 1 g of feces eggs are found in tests by all three methods. Methods of researches of feces are more exact at concentration of 100 and more eggs in 1 g of feces. With increase of concentration of the eggs brought in feces efficiency of methods in-creased. The Mini Parasep method which showed efficiency in the presence of more than 200 eggs in 1 g of feces appeared less exact. Sensitivity of a method var-ied from 0 to 81 % depending on concentration of eggs in tests of feces that points to its insufficient efficiency. Existence of foreign particles in the studied tests of feces complicates research of tests and therefore some eggs of helminths can be not found.
About the Authors
D. Yu. Derkachev
Stavropol State Agricultural University
Russian Federation
postgraduate
Russian Federation
postgraduate
V. A. Orobets
Stavropol State Agricultural University
Russian Federation
doctor of veterinary sciences
Russian Federation
doctor of veterinary sciences
I. V. Zaichenko
Stavropol State Agricultural University
Russian Federation
PhD in veterinary sciences
Russian Federation
PhD in veterinary sciences
References
1. Akbaev M.Sh. Veterinarnaja gel'mintologija / Pod red. Akbaeva M.Sh. - M.: Kolos, 1998. - S. 82-106.
2. Vasil'eva E.A. Jepizootologija trematodozov krupnogo rogatogo skota i sovershenstvovanie sistemy protivotrematodoznyh meroprijatij v Respublike Altaj: Dis. … kand. vet. nauk. – Novosibirsk, 2010. – 147 s. 71
3. Gorshkova G.G. Dikrocelioz krupnogo rogatogo skota v Respublike Ta-tarstan: Jepizootologija, diagnostika i terapija: Dis. … kand. vet. nauk. – Kazan', 2004. – 167 s.
4. Demidov N.V. Fasciolez. Spravochnik po veterinarnoj gel'mintologii / Pod red. Ershova B.C. - M.: Kolos, 1964. - S. 40-53.
5. Kac L.S. Usovershenstvovanie metoda prizhiznennoj diagnostiki trema-todoznyh zabolevanij // Nauch.-teh. bjul. - Novosibirsk, 1981. - Vyp. 50. - S. 31-34.
6. Latypov D.G. Gel'mintozy krupnogo rogatogo skota v respublike Tatarstan (jepizootologija diagnostika terapija): Dis. … d-ra vet. nauk. – M., 2010. – 336 s.
7. Lutfullin M.H., Latypov D.G., Gorshkova G.G., Timerbaeva R.R. Metod Shherbovicha dlja diagnostiki trematodozov // Vet. konsul'tant. - 2002. - № 11. - S. 14-15.
8. Migacheva L.D., Kotel'nikov G.A. Metodicheskie rekomendacii po is-pol'zovaniju ustrojstv dlja podscheta jaic gel'mintov // Bjul. Vses. in-ta gel'mintol. – 1987. - Vyp. 48. - S. 81-83.
9. Hrenov V.M. Usovershenstvovanie koproskopicheskoj diagnostiki gel'mintozov zhvachnyh i svinej: Avtoref. dis. … kand. vet. nauk. – M., 1978. – 24 s.
10. Breza M. The improvement of the swine faeces coproovoscopic examina-tion methodology using a new flotation solution and mucagel // Vet. Čas. – 1959. - № 8. – P. 569–576.
11. Chiodini P.L. New Diagnostics in Parasitology // Infect. Dis. Clin. – 2005. - № 19. – P. 267–270.
12. Coles G.C., Bauer C., Borgsteede F.H.M. et al. World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P) methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance // Vet. Parasitol. – 1992. - № 44. – P. 35–44.
13. Cringoli G., Rinaldi L., Veneziano V. et al. The influence of flotation solu-tion, sample dilution and the choice of McMaster slide area (volume) on the relia-bility of the McMaster technique in estimating the faecal egg counts of gastrointes-tinal strongyles and Dicrocoelium dendriticum in sheep // Vet. Parasitol. – 2004. - № 123. – P. 121–131.
14. Cringoli G., Rinaldi L., Maurelli M.P., Utzinger J. FLOTAC: new multi-valent techniques for quantitative copromicroscopic diagnosis of parasites in ani-mals and humans // Nat. Protoc. – 2010. - № 5. - P. 503–515.
15. Kruskal W.H., Wallis W.A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis // J. of the Am. Stat. Assoc. – 1952. – V. 47, № 260. - P. 583-621.
16. Levecke B.A., Behnke J.M., Ajjampur S.S. Comparison of the sensitivity and fecal egg counts of the McMaster egg counting and Kato-Katz thick smear methods for soil-transmitted helminthes // J. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. – 2011. - № 5(6). – P. 12-20.
17. MAFF. Fisheries and Food, Reference Book: Manual of Veterinary Parasi-tological Laboratory Techniques, Ministry of Agriculture, HMSO, London. – 1986. - V. 418. – P. 5.
18. McKenna N.Z. The diagnostic value and interpretation of faceal egg counts in sheep // Vet. J. - 1981. - № 29. – P. 129–132.
19. Nichols J., Obendorf D.L. Application of a composite faecal egg count proce-dure in diagnostic parasitology // Vet. Parasitol. – 1994. - № 52. – P. 337–342.
20. Pereckiene A., Kaziunaite V., Vyšniauskas A. et al. A comparison of modi-fications of the McMaster method for the enumeration of Ascaris suum eggs in pig faecal samples // Vet. Parasitol. – 2007. - № 149. – P. 111–116.
21. Roepstorff A., Nansen P. Epidemiology, diagnosis and control of helminth parasites of swine // FAO Animal Health Manual. - 1998. – 191 p.
22. Ward M.P., Lyndal-Murphy M., Baldock F.C. Evaluation of a composite method for counting helminth eggs in cattle faeces // Vet. Parasitol. -1997. - № 73. – P. 181–187.
23. Wood I.B., Amaral N.K., Bairden K. et al. World Association for the Ad-vancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) second edition of guidelines for evaluating the efficacy of anthelmintics in ruminants (bovine, ovine, caprine) // Vet Parasitol. – 1995. - № 58. – P. 181-213.
24. Zajicek D. Comparison of the efficiency of two quantitative ovoskopic methods (article in Czech) // Vet Med. – 1978. - № 23. – P. 275-280.
Review
For citations:
Derkachev D.Yu., Orobets V.A., Zaichenko I.V. Comparative assessment of efficiency quantitative methods of coproovoscopy. Russian Journal of Parasitology. 2014;(3):68-37. (In Russ.)
Views:
405
Email this article 