Reliability of three common fecal egg counting techniques for detecting strongylid and ascarid infections in horses.


Journal

Veterinary parasitology
ISSN: 1873-2550
Titre abrégé: Vet Parasitol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7602745

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Historique:
received: 25 03 2019
revised: 02 07 2019
accepted: 09 07 2019
entrez: 10 8 2019
pubmed: 10 8 2019
medline: 7 9 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The detection and quantification of nematode eggs using fecal egg count techniques have an irreplaceable role in equine parasitic control. The reliability, particularly precision and accuracy, of individual techniques have been described only for strongylid infections. The aim of this study was to compare three fecal egg count techniques used for the detection of the two most common equine nematode infections: strongylid and ascarid. The Simple McMaster, Concentration McMaster and Mini-FLOTAC techniques were tested on spiked fecal samples with various levels of egg concentration (50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 and 3000 eggs per gram) and naturally infected mixed strongylid-ascarid samples with 30 replicates. The Simple McMaster, Concentration McMaster and Mini-FLOTAC techniques had precision coefficients of variation of 44.33, 35.64 and 18.25% for the strongylid infection and 62.95, 35.71 and 18.95% for the ascarid infection, and percent accuracies (mean count/number of eggs spiked) of 97.53, 88.39 and 74.18% for the strongylid infection and 65.53, 83.18 and 90.28% for the ascarid infection, respectively. Accuracy depended greatly on the type of nematode, but precision did not. The Mini-FLOTAC technique was more precise than the Simple and Concentration McMaster techniques regardless of nematode type. Simple McMaster was the most accurate technique for detecting strongylid eggs, and Mini-FLOTAC was the most accurate technique for detecting ascarid eggs. Our results indicated that none of the current techniques were universally and sufficiently reliable for the simultaneous quantification of both of these common equine nematodes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31395205
pii: S0304-4017(19)30164-5
doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2019.07.001
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

53-57

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

J Nápravníková (J)

Department of Zoology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00, Prague, Suchdol, Czech Republic.

M Petrtýl (M)

Department of Zoology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00, Prague, Suchdol, Czech Republic.

R Stupka (R)

Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00, Prague, Suchdol, Czech Republic.

J Vadlejch (J)

Department of Zoology and Fisheries, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00, Prague, Suchdol, Czech Republic. Electronic address: vadlejch@af.czu.cz.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH