Short communication: Misleading microscopy in amoebiasis

Summary High prevalences of intestinal amoebiasis are commonly reported by microscopy in Ethiopia. In order to confirm the actual occurrence of Entamoeba histolytica we collected 108 stool specimens from different hospitals & health centers from patients in whom haematophagous trophozoites were...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Tropical medicine & international health 2004-05, Vol.9 (5), p.651-652
Main Authors: Kebede, Amha, Verweij, Jaco J., Petros, Beyene, Polderman, Anton M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Amibiasis
Animals
Biological and medical sciences
Diagnostic Errors
Dysentery, Amebic - diagnosis
Entamoeba dispar
Entamoeba histolytica
Entamoeba histolytica - isolation & purification
haematophagous
Human protozoal diseases
Humans
Infectious diseases
Medical sciences
Microscopy - standards
Parasitic diseases
Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods
Protozoal diseases
real‐time polymerase chain reaction
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary High prevalences of intestinal amoebiasis are commonly reported by microscopy in Ethiopia. In order to confirm the actual occurrence of Entamoeba histolytica we collected 108 stool specimens from different hospitals & health centers from patients in whom haematophagous trophozoites were believed to be found. We detected only a single E. histolytica case while 77 (71.3%) were E. dispar and the remaining 30 samples were negative for both species by real‐time PCR based on the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene sequence of E. histolytica and E. dispar. The tradition of microscopy in a routine diagnostic set‐up appears unsatisfactory to reliably differentiate rbc‐engulfing amoeba from non‐invasive amoeba in wet smears.
ISSN:1360-2276
1365-3156
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01236.x