Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease

Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Supriya Mahajan [verfasserIn] Shalini Thapar [verfasserIn] Vikas Khillan [verfasserIn] Pradheer Gupta [verfasserIn] Archana Rastogi [verfasserIn] Ekta Gupta [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	hepatic hydatid disease elisa fine needle aspiration cytology liver mass lesions

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Laboratory Physicians - Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2011, 12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:12 ; year:2020 ; number:02 ; pages:098-102

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1055/s-0040-1716460

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ037588664

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ037588664
003	DE-627
005	20230308011651.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1055/s-0040-1716460 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ037588664
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Supriya Mahajan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA.
650		4	\|a hepatic hydatid disease
650		4	\|a elisa
650		4	\|a fine needle aspiration cytology
650		4	\|a liver mass lesions
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
700	0		\|a Shalini Thapar \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Vikas Khillan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Pradheer Gupta \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Archana Rastogi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Ekta Gupta \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Laboratory Physicians \|d Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2011 \|g 12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102 \|w (DE-627)584400470 \|w (DE-600)2461120-7 \|x 09747826 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:12 \|g year:2020 \|g number:02 \|g pages:098-102
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716460 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716460 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0974-2727 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0974-7826 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_267
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 12 \|j 2020 \|e 02 \|h 098-102

Indexfelder

author_variant	s m sm s t st v k vk p g pg a r ar e g eg
matchkey_str	article:09747826:2020----::oprtveautooehnccusrlgwtctlgfrhdans
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.1055/s-0040-1716460 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037588664 (DE-599)DOAJ2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Supriya Mahajan verfasserin aut Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA. hepatic hydatid disease elisa fine needle aspiration cytology liver mass lesions Medicine R Shalini Thapar verfasserin aut Vikas Khillan verfasserin aut Pradheer Gupta verfasserin aut Archana Rastogi verfasserin aut Ekta Gupta verfasserin aut In Journal of Laboratory Physicians Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2011 12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102 (DE-627)584400470 (DE-600)2461120-7 09747826 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:02 pages:098-102 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 kostenfrei http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-2727 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-7826 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 02 098-102
spelling	10.1055/s-0040-1716460 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037588664 (DE-599)DOAJ2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Supriya Mahajan verfasserin aut Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA. hepatic hydatid disease elisa fine needle aspiration cytology liver mass lesions Medicine R Shalini Thapar verfasserin aut Vikas Khillan verfasserin aut Pradheer Gupta verfasserin aut Archana Rastogi verfasserin aut Ekta Gupta verfasserin aut In Journal of Laboratory Physicians Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2011 12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102 (DE-627)584400470 (DE-600)2461120-7 09747826 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:02 pages:098-102 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 kostenfrei http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-2727 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-7826 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 02 098-102
allfields_unstemmed	10.1055/s-0040-1716460 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037588664 (DE-599)DOAJ2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Supriya Mahajan verfasserin aut Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA. hepatic hydatid disease elisa fine needle aspiration cytology liver mass lesions Medicine R Shalini Thapar verfasserin aut Vikas Khillan verfasserin aut Pradheer Gupta verfasserin aut Archana Rastogi verfasserin aut Ekta Gupta verfasserin aut In Journal of Laboratory Physicians Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2011 12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102 (DE-627)584400470 (DE-600)2461120-7 09747826 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:02 pages:098-102 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 kostenfrei http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-2727 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-7826 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 02 098-102
allfieldsGer	10.1055/s-0040-1716460 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037588664 (DE-599)DOAJ2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Supriya Mahajan verfasserin aut Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA. hepatic hydatid disease elisa fine needle aspiration cytology liver mass lesions Medicine R Shalini Thapar verfasserin aut Vikas Khillan verfasserin aut Pradheer Gupta verfasserin aut Archana Rastogi verfasserin aut Ekta Gupta verfasserin aut In Journal of Laboratory Physicians Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2011 12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102 (DE-627)584400470 (DE-600)2461120-7 09747826 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:02 pages:098-102 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 kostenfrei http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-2727 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-7826 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 02 098-102
allfieldsSound	10.1055/s-0040-1716460 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037588664 (DE-599)DOAJ2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Supriya Mahajan verfasserin aut Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA. hepatic hydatid disease elisa fine needle aspiration cytology liver mass lesions Medicine R Shalini Thapar verfasserin aut Vikas Khillan verfasserin aut Pradheer Gupta verfasserin aut Archana Rastogi verfasserin aut Ekta Gupta verfasserin aut In Journal of Laboratory Physicians Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2011 12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102 (DE-627)584400470 (DE-600)2461120-7 09747826 nnns volume:12 year:2020 number:02 pages:098-102 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 kostenfrei http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716460 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-2727 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0974-7826 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 12 2020 02 098-102
language	English
source	In Journal of Laboratory Physicians 12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102 volume:12 year:2020 number:02 pages:098-102
sourceStr	In Journal of Laboratory Physicians 12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102 volume:12 year:2020 number:02 pages:098-102
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	hepatic hydatid disease elisa fine needle aspiration cytology liver mass lesions Medicine R
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Laboratory Physicians
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Supriya Mahajan @@aut@@ Shalini Thapar @@aut@@ Vikas Khillan @@aut@@ Pradheer Gupta @@aut@@ Archana Rastogi @@aut@@ Ekta Gupta @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	584400470
id	DOAJ037588664
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ037588664</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308011651.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1055/s-0040-1716460</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ037588664</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Supriya Mahajan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hepatic hydatid disease</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">elisa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fine needle aspiration cytology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">liver mass lesions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shalini Thapar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vikas Khillan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pradheer Gupta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Archana Rastogi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ekta Gupta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Laboratory Physicians</subfield><subfield code="d">Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)584400470</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2461120-7</subfield><subfield code="x">09747826</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:098-102</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716460</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716460</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0974-2727</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0974-7826</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">02</subfield><subfield code="h">098-102</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Supriya Mahajan
spellingShingle	Supriya Mahajan misc hepatic hydatid disease misc elisa misc fine needle aspiration cytology misc liver mass lesions misc Medicine misc R Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease
authorStr	Supriya Mahajan
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)584400470
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	09747826
topic_title	Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease hepatic hydatid disease elisa fine needle aspiration cytology liver mass lesions
topic	misc hepatic hydatid disease misc elisa misc fine needle aspiration cytology misc liver mass lesions misc Medicine misc R
topic_unstemmed	misc hepatic hydatid disease misc elisa misc fine needle aspiration cytology misc liver mass lesions misc Medicine misc R
topic_browse	misc hepatic hydatid disease misc elisa misc fine needle aspiration cytology misc liver mass lesions misc Medicine misc R
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Laboratory Physicians
hierarchy_parent_id	584400470
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Laboratory Physicians
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)584400470 (DE-600)2461120-7
title	Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ037588664 (DE-599)DOAJ2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8
title_full	Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease
author_sort	Supriya Mahajan
journal	Journal of Laboratory Physicians
journalStr	Journal of Laboratory Physicians
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	098
author_browse	Supriya Mahajan Shalini Thapar Vikas Khillan Pradheer Gupta Archana Rastogi Ekta Gupta
container_volume	12
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Supriya Mahajan
doi_str_mv	10.1055/s-0040-1716460
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparative evaluation of echinococcus serology with cytology for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease
title_auth	Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease
abstract	Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA.
abstractGer	Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA.
abstract_unstemmed	Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	02
title_short	Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease
url	https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716460 https://doaj.org/article/2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8 http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716460 https://doaj.org/toc/0974-2727 https://doaj.org/toc/0974-7826
remote_bool	true
author2	Shalini Thapar Vikas Khillan Pradheer Gupta Archana Rastogi Ekta Gupta
author2Str	Shalini Thapar Vikas Khillan Pradheer Gupta Archana Rastogi Ekta Gupta
ppnlink	584400470
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1055/s-0040-1716460
up_date	2024-07-04T01:46:54.495Z
_version_	1803611133180903424
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ037588664</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308011651.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1055/s-0040-1716460</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ037588664</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Supriya Mahajan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objectives The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions for the diagnosis of hepatic hydatid disease (HHD) and to compare the diagnostic performance of ELISA with fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) (taken as standard) for HHD diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included blood samples of 223 patients with radiologically confirmed liver mass lesions in which immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Echinococcus antibodies were tested using a commercial IgG ELISA (RIDASCREEN, R-Biopharm AG, Darmstadt, Germany). Results of ELISA, ultrasonography, FNAC, and liver function tests were obtained from the hospital information system. ELISA results were compared with those of FNAC to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD diagnosis. Statistical Analysis Comparison of the results obtained from ELISA was performed with respect to FNAC results (taken as standard) to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of ELISA for HHD detection. Data has been represented as median (range) or in frequencies. Wilson score was used to assess 95% confidence interval of diagnostic parameters. The analysis was performed using SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM Corp.) and Open Epi (version 3.01). Results Out of 223 cases with liver mass lesions, Echinococcus IgG was reactive in 62 (28%) cases and FNAC was positive in 16 (7.2%) cases. Since two cases were FNAC-positive but IgG-nonreactive, total HHD cases were 64 (28.7%). Echinococcus IgG reactive cases were seen more in the extremes of age group, that is, 1 to 10 years and 81 to 90 years. Taking FNAC as the standard, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ELISA were 87.5, 76.8, 22.6, and 98.7%, respectively. Cytology-positive cases demonstrated a mean ELISA optical density/cut-off (OD/CO) of 4.2 ± 3 standard deviation. Conclusion ELISA in radiologically confirmed liver mass cases is highly sensitive in detecting HHD and hence should be used along with ultrasonography for the screening of HHD followed by confirmation with cytology even in cases with a higher OD/CO of ELISA.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hepatic hydatid disease</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">elisa</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fine needle aspiration cytology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">liver mass lesions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shalini Thapar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vikas Khillan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pradheer Gupta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Archana Rastogi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ekta Gupta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Laboratory Physicians</subfield><subfield code="d">Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2011</subfield><subfield code="g">12(2020), 02, Seite 098-102</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)584400470</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2461120-7</subfield><subfield code="x">09747826</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:12</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:098-102</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716460</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/2562a179b0d74a8f8c7a970d18099ea8</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0040-1716460</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0974-2727</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0974-7826</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">12</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">02</subfield><subfield code="h">098-102</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3989573

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparative Evaluation of Echinococcus Serology with Cytology for the Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydatid Disease

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?