↓ Skip to main content

Coproscopy and molecular screening for detection of intestinal protozoa

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coproscopy and molecular screening for detection of intestinal protozoa
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2346-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marawan Abu-Madi, Sonia Boughattas, Jerzy M. Behnke, Aarti Sharma, Ahmed Ismail

Abstract

Intestinal parasitosis is one of several health concerns about immigrants who travel from endemic to non-endemic regions. Reliable rapid sensitive diagnostic tools, for use in non-endemic regions, are urgently required to enable frequent assessment of immigrant workers in jobs where risk of local transmission is a particular concern (e.g. food-handlers). We assessed the burden of intestinal protozoa in newly arrived immigrants and those applying for renewal of work permits in Qatar (n = 735), by both microscopic examination of stool samples and by Real Time PCR methodology. Prevalence was considerably higher using RT-PCR compared with coproscopy (Blastocystis hominis: 65.2 vs 7.6%; Giardia duodenalis: 14.3 vs 2.9%; Entamoeba histolytica: 1.6 vs 1.2%). Dientamoeba fragilis was sought only by RT-PCR (prevalence of 25.4%). Prevalence of G. duodenalis was significantly higher in male subjects, associated with blue collar workers and declined over time. Prevalence of B. hominis varied significantly with region of origin of subjects with highest values recorded among African immigrants. Prevalence of D. fragilis also varied with region of origin of subjects, and was lower in young female subjects and in renewal applicants compared with first-time applicants for work permits. We strongly recommend that, henceforth, intestinal protozoa should be screened by RT-PCR, with a particular focus on frequent assessment of immigrant food-handlers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 18 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 21 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,916,739
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#3,847
of 5,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,329
of 315,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#77
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.