Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi, cilt.18, 2012 (SCI-Expanded)
This study evaluates prevalence of E. histolytica/dispar and E. histolytica at stool tests of patients who were admitted to various clinics of Dumlupınar University Medical School and subsequently were required to be examined for amoebae presence in their fecal matters. Stool samples of 617 patients with diarrhea, sent to Parasitology Laboratory between the years 2007 and 2010, were first examined microscopically using native lugol, and trichrome staining when necessary; and 37 samples (5.99%) found containing E. histolytica/dispar preserved under technically-required conditions for following ELISA testing (Wampole® E. histolytica II Techlab®, Inc., Blacksburg, VA) to detect E. histolytica by looking for specific antigens. Only two samples (0.32%) were found to contain E. histolytica. It may be concluded that prevalence of E. histolytica is much lower than expected and a great majority of patients (94.6%) were treated needlessly (P<0.01). Therefore, a more prudent approach would be that the stool samples found to contain E. histolytica/dispar to be re-evaluated immediately by differential diagnosis method, and all stool samples to be examined for specific antigens when laboratory capacity allows.