Evidence Hub

Sensitivity of microscopy versus enzyme immunoassay in the laboratory diagnosis of giardiasis

Mank TG, Zaat JO, Deelder AM, van Eijk JT, Polderman AM

European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 1997

366 participants

Abstract

The substitution of enzyme immunoassay (EIA) techniques for microscopy as a screening tool for Giardia lamblia infection was assessed. Paired stool samples obtained within a ten-day period from 366 patients with persistent diarrhea were examined by microscopy. In addition, two commercially available Giardia lamblia-specific EIAs were performed. Compared with microscopy, EIA for copro-antigen detection was more sensitive, based on examination of either one or two stool samples. Repeated examinations increased the number of cases detected, more so for microscopy than EIA. The negative predictive values of the two EIAs performed on the first stool sample were 98.7% and 97.8%. The results show that EIA for detection of copro-antigens in a single stool sample may be almost as sensitive for identifying Giardia infection as repeated microscopy on two sequential stool samples.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 366 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free