Icono govco
 

Publicación:
Evaluación de técnicas coprodiagnósticas para Toxocara canis

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.authorCárdenas Camacho, Jessica
dc.contributor.authorLesmes Infante, Karen Isabel
dc.contributor.authorTorres Tocasuche, Marly Carolina
dc.contributor.authorAlcantara-Neves, Neuza María
dc.contributor.authorJaramillo Hernández, Dumar Alexander
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-23T13:51:48Z
dc.date.available2023-05-23T13:51:48Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractEl estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la sensibilidad de técnicas coprodiagnósticas para determinar cuantitativamente la presencia de huevos de Toxocara canis en muestras de heces frescas de caninos. Para ello, se extrajeron huevos del útero de hembras adultas de T. canis obtenidas de cachorros caninos. Se utilizaron ocho concentraciones de huevos (10,50,75,100,250,500,750 y 1000 huevos por gramo de materia fecal–hpg), siendo considerados como el gold standard para determinar el grado de precisión de las técnicas Kato-Katz, McMaster, McMaster modificado mejorado y Faust. Se utilizaron tres repeticiones por técnica y por concentración. La sensibilidad de cada prueba se realizó mediante el cálculo aritmético y curva ROC (IC95%), comparándolas con el gold standard mediante una prueba no paramétrica de los rangos con signo de Wilcoxon (p<0.05). La técnica Faust detectó huevos de T. canis sin importar la concentración, pero en desigualdad estadística con el gold standard (p<0.001 a p<0.0001). La técnica KatoKatz no presentó diferencias significativas con el gold standard, pero no detectó la presencia de huevos de T. canis en 10 y 50 hpg, mientras que la técnica McMaster modificado mejorado presentó similitud con el gold estandar en 100 y 250 hpg. El método de McMaster detectó huevos a partir de 100 hpg, obteniendo valores de hpg por debajo del gold standard (p<0.05 y p<0.001). Se obtuvieron sensibilidades de 74.72% (IC95% 72.93-80.22) para la técnica de Kato-Katz y entre 30 y 40% (IC95% 26.71-48.29) para las demás pruebas. Se concluye que la técnica Kato-Katz obtuvo un mejor desempeño en sensibilidad diagnóstica cuantitativa constante al comprarse con técnicas cotidianas cuantitativas de diagnóstico coprológico en laboratorios veterinarios para huevos de T. canis en muestras de heces frescas de canes.spa
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of four coprodiagnostic techniques to quantitatively determine the presence of Toxocara canis eggs in fresh canine stool samples. For this, eggs were extracted from the uterus of adult female T. canis obtained from canine puppies. Eight concentrations of eggs were used (10, 50, 75, 100, 250, 500, 750 and 1 000 eggs per gram of faeces - epg), being considered as the gold standard to determine the degree of precision of the Kato-Katz, McMaster, Improved Modified McMaster and Faust techniques. Three repetitions were used per technique and per concentration. The sensitivity of each test was performed by arithmetic calculation and ROC curve (95% CI), comparing them with the gold standard by means of a nonparametric test of the Wilcoxon signed ranges (p<0.05). The Faust technique detected T. canis eggs regardless of concentration, but in statistical inequality with the gold standard (p<0.001 to p<0.0001). The Kato-Katz technique did not show significant differences with the gold standard, but it was unable to detect the presence of T. canis eggs in 10 and 50 epg concentration, while the improved modified McMaster technique showed similarity with the gold standard in 100 and 250 epg. The McMaster method detected eggs from 100 epg, obtaining epg values below the gold standard (p<0.05 and p<0.001). Sensitivities of 74.72% (95% CI 72.93-80.22) were obtained for the Kato-Katz technique and between 30 and 40% (95% CI 26.71-48.29) for the other tests. It is concluded that the Kato-Katz technique obtained a better performance showing a constant quantitative diagnostic sensitivity when compared with other routine quantitative stool diagnosis techniques in veterinary laboratories for T. canis eggs in fresh dog faeces samples.eng
dc.description.tableofcontentsResumen. -- Abstract. -- Introducción . -- Materiales y métodos . -- Huevos de toxocara canis . -- Diseño experimental . -- Técnicas coprodiagnósticas . -- Diseño estadístico . -- Resultados . – Discusión . -- Conclusiones . -- Literatura citada.spa
dc.format.extent13 páginasspa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.identifier.citationCárdenas Camacho, J., Lesmes Infante, K. I., Torres Tocasuche, M. C., Alcantara-Neves, N. M., & Jaramillo Hernández, D. A. (2021). Evaluación de técnicas coprodiagnósticas para Toxocara canis. Revista De Investigaciones Veterinarias Del Perú, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v32i3.18spa
dc.identifier.eissn1682-3419spa
dc.identifier.instnameUniversidad de los Llanosspa
dc.identifier.issn1609-9117spa
dc.identifier.reponameRepositorio digital Universidad de los Llanosspa
dc.identifier.repourlhttps://repositorio.unillanos.edu.co/spa
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unillanos.edu.co/handle/001/2880
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherUniversidad de los Llanosspa
dc.publisher.placeVillavicenciospa
dc.relation.citationendpage13spa
dc.relation.citationissueNúm. 3spa
dc.relation.citationstartpage1spa
dc.relation.citationvolumeVol. 32spa
dc.relation.indexedN/Aspa
dc.relation.ispartofjournalRevista de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perúspa
dc.relation.referencesAbou-El-Naga IF. 2018. Developmental stages and viability of Toxocara canis eggs outside the host. Biomédica 38: 189-197.spa
dc.relation.referencesAlcântara N, Bavia E, Silvão RM, Carvalho E. 1989. Environmental contamination by Toxocara sp eggs in public areas of Salvador, Bahia State, Brazil. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop 22: 187190. doi: 10.1590/s0037-86821989000400005spa
dc.relation.referencesAntunes T, Leão M, Lignon J, Camassola JL, Goncalves N, Machado PC, Ferraz A, et al. 2020. Frequência de helmintos em amostras fecais de cães em praças públicas de Pelotas-RS. Pubvet 14: a636. doi: 10.31533/ pubvet.v14n8a636.1-6spa
dc.relation.referencesBartlett MS, Harper K, Smith N, Verbanac P, Smith JW. 1978. Compara-tive evaluation of a modified zinc sulfate flotation technique. J Clin Microbiol 7: 524-528.spa
dc.relation.referencesBecker AC, Kraemer A, Epe C, Strube C. 2016. Sensitivity and efficiency of selected coproscopical methodssedimentation, combined zinc sulfate sedimentation-flotation, and McMaster method. Parasitol Res 115: 2581-2587. doi: 10.1007/s00436-016-5003-8spa
dc.relation.referencesBerrett A. 2017. Toxocara seroprevalence and associated risk factors in the United States. Am J Trop Med Hyg 97: 1846-1850. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.17-0542spa
dc.relation.referencesBosch F, Palmeirim MS, Ali SM, Ame SM, Hattendorf J, Keiser J. 2021. Diagnosis of soil-transmitted helminths using the Kato-Katz technique: what is the influence of stirring, storage time and storage temperature on stool sample egg counts? PLoS Negl Trop Dis 15(1): e0009032. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009032spa
dc.relation.referencesBravo S, Cruz JP. 2015. Estudios de exactitud diagnóstica: Herramientas para su interpretación. Rev Chil Radiol 21: 158-164. doi: 10.4067/S071793082015000-400007spa
dc.relation.referencesBreña JP, Hernández R, Hernández A, Castañeda R, Espinoza Y, Roldán W, Ramirez C, et al. 2011. Toxocariosis humana en el Perú: aspectos pidemiológicos, clínicos y de laboratorio. Acta Méd Per 28: 228-236.spa
dc.relation.references[CAPC] Companion Animal Parasite Council. 2016. Ascarids. [Internet]. Available in: https://capcvet.org/guidelines/ascarid/spa
dc.relation.referencesCarvalho GL, Moreira LE, Pen JL, Marinho CC, Bahia MT, Machado GL. 2012. A comparative study of the TF-Test®, Kato-Katz, Hoffman-PonsJaner, Willis and Baermann-Moraes coprologic methods for the detection of human parasitosis. Mem I Oswaldo Cruz 107: 80-84. doi: 10.1590/S007402762012000100011spa
dc.relation.references[CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Neglected Parasitic Infections in the United States. 2021. [Internet]. Available in: https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxocariasis/spa
dc.relation.referencesChen J, Zhou DH, Nisbet AJ, Xu MJ, Huang SY, Li MW, Wang CR, Zhu XQ. 2012. Advances in molecular identification, taxonomy, genetic variation and diagnosis of Toxocara spp. Infect Genet Evol 12: 1344-1348. doi: 10.1016/ j.meegid.2012.04.019spa
dc.relation.referencesChen J, Liu Q, Liu GH, Zheng WB, Hong SJ, Sugiyama H, Zhu XQ, Elsheikha HM. 2018. Toxocariasis: a silent threat with a progressive public health impact. Infect Dis Poverty 7: 59. doi: 10.1186/s40249-018-0437-0spa
dc.relation.referencesCong W, Zhang XX, Zhou N, Yu CZ, Chen J, Wang XY, Li B, et al. 2014. Toxocara seroprevalence among clinically healthy individuals, pregnant women and psychiatric patients and associated risk factors in Shandong Province, Eastern China. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 8: e3082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003082spa
dc.relation.referencesCools P, Vlaminck J, Albonico M, Ame S, Ayana M, Barrios JA, Cringoli G, et al. 2019. Diagnostic performance of a single and duplicate Kato-Katz, MiniFLOTAC, FECPAKG2 and qPCR for the detection and quantification of soiltransmitted helminths in three endemic countries. PLoS Neglect Trop D 13: 7746-7468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007446spa
dc.relation.referencesCringoli G, Rinaldi L, Veneziano V, Capelli G, Scala A. 2004. The influence of flotation solution, sample dilution and the choice of McMaster slide area (volume) on the reliability of the McMaster technique in estimating the faecal egg counts of gastrointestinal strongyles and Dicrocoelium dendriticum in sheep. Vet Parasitol 123: 121.131. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.05.021spa
dc.relation.referencesDas G, Klauser S, Stehr M,Tuchscherer A, Metges CC. 2020. Acc-racy and precision of McMaster and MiniFLOTAC egg counting techniques using egg-spiked faeces of chickens and two different flotation fluids. Vet Parasitol 283: 109-158. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2020.109158spa
dc.relation.referencesEstrada MAJ, Jiménez JJC, García VMP, Isaías GT. 2002. Evaluation of Eimeria tenella oocyst total count carried out with both the McMaster camera and the Neubauer haemocytometer from faeces or caecal tissue samples. Vet Mexico 33: 73-79.spa
dc.relation.referencesGibbson L, Jacobs D, Fox M, Hansen J. 2010. The RVC/FAO guide to veterinary diagnostic parasitology: diagnostic tests: McMaster egg counting technique: principle. [Internet]. Available in: https://www.rvc.ac.uk/review/parasitology/EggCount/Purpose.htmspa
dc.relation.referencesGiraldo JC, Guatibonza AM. 2017. Comparación de sensibilidad y especificidad de dos técnicas de diagnóstico directo: Kato–Katz-Saf y Ritchie–Frick (formol-gasolina) en examen coproparasitológico para la identificación de estadios infectivos de geohelmintos en población infantil en edad preescolar y escolar. Revista Med 25: 22-41.spa
dc.relation.referencesJones L, Kruszon-Moran D, Won K, Wilson M, Schantz PM. 2008. Toxoplasma gondii and Toxocara spp coinfection. Am J Trop Med Hyg 78: 35-39.spa
dc.relation.referencesKaminsky R, Groothousen CM, Zúniga AM, Contreras M, Ferrera AM, Henríquez KC. 2014. Infección por Toxocara canis en perros y riesgo de toxocariasis humana, Honduras. Rev Med Hondur 82: 50-57.spa
dc.relation.referencesLucio-Forster A, Mizhquiri JF, Mohammed HO, Kornreich BG, Bowman DD. 2016. Comparison of the prevalence of Toxocara egg shedding by pet cats and dogs in the U.S.A., 2011– 2014. Vet Parasitol 5: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/ j.vprsr.2016.08.002spa
dc.relation.referencesMa G, Holland CV, Wang T, Hofmann A, Fan C, Maizels RM, Hotez PJ, Gasser RB. 2018. Human toxocariasis. Lancet Infect Dis 18: 14-24.spa
dc.relation.referencesNijsse R, Overgaauw P, Ploeger H, Mughini-Gras L. 2020. Sources of environmental contamination with Toxocara spp: an omnipresent parasite. In: dvances in parasitology. Academic Press. p 585-614.spa
dc.relation.references[NRC] National Research Council. 2004. The development of sciencebased guidelines for laboratory animal care. Washington DC: NRC. Technical report series. 248 p.spa
dc.relation.referencesOkulewicz A, Perec-Matysiak A, Buñkowska K, Hildebrand J. 2012. Toxocara canis, Toxocara cati and Toxascaris leonina in wild and domestic carnivores. Helminthologia 1: 3-10.spa
dc.relation.references[OMS] Organización Mundial de la Salud. 2019. Bench aids for the diagnosis of intestinal parasites. 2ª ed. Ginebra: Organización Mundial de la Salud. 32 p.spa
dc.relation.referencesPerecki A, Kaziûnait V, Vyðniausk A, Petkevièius S, Malakask A, Ðarkûnas M, Taylor MA. 2007. A comparison of modifications of the McMaster method for the enumeration of Ascaris suum eggs in pig faecal samples. Vet Parasitol 149: 111116. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2007.-04.014spa
dc.relation.referencesPrestes-Carneiro LE, RubinskyElefant G, Ferreira AW, Araujo PR, Troiani C, Zago SC, Kaiahara M, et al 2013. Seroprevalence of toxoplasmosis, toxocariasis and cysticercosis in a rural settlement, Estado de Sao Paulo, Brasil. Pathog Glob Health 107: 88-95. doi: 10.1179/2047773213Y.0000000079spa
dc.relation.referencesRegis SCS, Mendonça LR, dos Santos Silva N, Dattoli VCC, AlcântaraNeves NM, Barrouin-Melo SM. 2011. Seroprevalence and risk factors for canine toxocariasis by detection of specific IgG as a marker of infection in dogs from Salvador, Brazil. Acta Trop 120: 46-51. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2011.05.011spa
dc.relation.referencesRestrepo IC, Mazo LP, Salazar ML, Montoya MN, Botero JH. 2013. Evaluación de tres técnicas coproparasitoscópicas para el diagnóstico de geohelmintos intestinales. Iatreia 26: 15-24.spa
dc.relation.referencesRojas AC, León MC, Bustamante OR. 2016. Toxocara canis: una zoonosis frecuente a nivel mundial. Rev Cienc Agric 13: 19-27.spa
dc.relation.referencesSowemimo OA, Lee YL, Asaolu SO, Chuang TW, Akinwale OP, Badejoko BO, Gyange VP, et al. 2017. Seroepidemiological study and associated risk factors of Toxocara canis infection among preschool children in Osun State, Nigeria. Acta Trop 173: 85-89. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2017.05.030spa
dc.relation.referencesStrube C, Heuer L, Janecek E. 2013. Toxocara spp infections in paratenic hosts. Vet Parasitol 193: 375-389. doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2012.12.033spa
dc.relation.referencesTaylor MA, Coop RL, Wall RL. 2015. Veterinary parasitology. 4 th ed. India: Wiley Blackwell. 1032 pspa
dc.relation.referencesUchôa FFM, Sudré AP, Campos SDE, Almosny NRP. 2018. Assessment of the diagnostic performance of four methods for the detection of Giardia duodenalis in fecal samples from human, canine and feline carriers. J Microbiol Meth 145: 7378. doi: 10.1016/j.mimet.2018.01.001spa
dc.relation.referencesWebster JP, Gower CM, Knowles SC, Molyneux DH, Fenton A. 2016. One health - an ecological and evolutionary framework for tackling Neglected Zoonotic Diseases. Evol Appl 9: 313-333. doi: 10.1111/eva.12341spa
dc.relation.referencesWoodhall DM, Eberhard ML, Parise ME. 2014. Neglected parasitic infections in the United States: toxocariasis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 90: 810-813. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0725spa
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.rights.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2spa
dc.rights.licenseAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)spa
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/spa
dc.sourcehttps://dx.doi.org/10.15381/rivep.v32i3.18861spa
dc.subject.armarcTécnicas coprodiagnósticas
dc.subject.armarcInfecciones intestinales
dc.subject.armarcParásitos en caninos
dc.subject.proposalToxocariasisspa
dc.subject.proposalZoonosisspa
dc.subject.proposalSalud públicaspa
dc.subject.proposalNematodospa
dc.subject.proposalEndoparásitospa
dc.subject.proposalEnfermedades desatendidasspa
dc.subject.proposalToxocariasiseng
dc.subject.proposalZoonoseseng
dc.subject.proposalPublic healtheng
dc.subject.proposalNematodeeng
dc.subject.proposalEndoparasiteeng
dc.subject.proposalNeglected diseaseseng
dc.titleEvaluación de técnicas coprodiagnósticas para Toxocara canisspa
dc.typeArtículo de revistaspa
dc.typeTrabajo de grado - Pregradospa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501spa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_7a1fspa
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85spa
dc.type.contentTextspa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlespa
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesisspa
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionspa
dspace.entity.typePublication
person.identifier.cvlachttps://scienti.minciencias.gov.co/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0000633925
person.identifier.gsidhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ugMx8ecAAAAJ&hl=es
person.identifier.orcid0000-0003-1377-1747
relation.isAuthorOfPublication3e90075e-e6d7-4a60-9623-0d169fda1eae
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery3e90075e-e6d7-4a60-9623-0d169fda1eae

Archivos

Bloque original
Mostrando 1 - 5 de 5
Miniatura
Nombre:
Trabajo de grado
Tamaño:
1.7 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Articulo Evaluación de técnicas coprodiagnósticas para Toxocara canis
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
Carta de autorización
Tamaño:
167.51 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Karen y Marly
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
Acta de sustentación
Tamaño:
629.25 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Firma del director de programa
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
Constancia
Tamaño:
149.32 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Karen
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
Constancia
Tamaño:
173.77 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Marly
Descargar
Bloque de licencias
Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
license.txt
Tamaño:
14.43 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descripción:
Descargar

Colecciones

Tesis y Trabajos de Grado