IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0010389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnosis of Schistosoma infection in non-human animal hosts: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Song Liang
  • Keerati Ponpetch
  • Yi-Biao Zhou
  • Jiagang Guo
  • Berhanu Erko
  • J Russell Stothard
  • M Hassan Murad
  • Xiao-Nong Zhou
  • Fadjar Satrija
  • Joanne P Webster
  • Justin V Remais
  • Jürg Utzinger
  • Amadou Garba

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. Author summary: The diagnosis of schistosome infection in non-human hosts is important for control and elimination of human schistosomiasis. This study aimed to summarize effectiveness of available diagnostic techniques through a systematic review of the literature and reports comparing two or more diagnostic tests in non-human animals. Overall, 4,909 articles and reports were screened. Nineteen articles met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed in greater detail. A total of 14 techniques (parasitologic, immunologic, and molecular) and nine types of non-human animals were involved in the studies. Four studies comparing 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) were included in the meta-analyses. The findings suggest that the parasitologic technique FEA-SD and molecular techniques, especially qPCR, are the most promising techniques. However, further validation and standardization of the techniques under field conditions are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Song Liang & Keerati Ponpetch & Yi-Biao Zhou & Jiagang Guo & Berhanu Erko & J Russell Stothard & M Hassan Murad & Xiao-Nong Zhou & Fadjar Satrija & Joanne P Webster & Justin V Remais & Jürg Utzinger &, 2022. "Diagnosis of Schistosoma infection in non-human animal hosts: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-21, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0010389
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0010389
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0010389&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010389?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0010389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.