Detection of intestinal protozoa by using different methods

A total of 305 stools samples during the period of October 2011 to June 2012 were collected from patients attending Brack General Hospital and Medical Technology, Department of Brack, Al-Shati, Libya. All stool samples were examined by direct smear preparation in normal saline, iodine, and eosin sta...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inDentistry and medical research Vol. 2; no. 2; pp. 28 - 32
Main Authors Mergani, Mergani, Mohammed, Mohammed, Khan, Nawed, Bano, Meraj, Khan, Abdul
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd 01.07.2014
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
Subjects
Formalin-ether
intestinal protozoa
Microbiota (Symbiotic organisms)
Microscope and microscopy
Physiological aspects
Protozoa
sheather′s sugar
Libya
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:A total of 305 stools samples during the period of October 2011 to June 2012 were collected from patients attending Brack General Hospital and Medical Technology, Department of Brack, Al-Shati, Libya. All stool samples were examined by direct smear preparation in normal saline, iodine, and eosin stains and 4 concentration methods (formalin-ether, normal saline sedimentation, zinc sulfate, and Sheather′s sugar flotation). Of the 305 samples, 18.03% stools were found positive for protozoan parasites in direct smear microscopy. Normal saline sedimentation and zinc sulfate flotation detected 27.21% and 23.6% positive samples, respectively. However, formalin-ether was found to be the most sensitive method. Sheather′s sugar flotation failed to detect Entamoeba histolytica/dispar, Entamoeba coli, and Blastocystis hominis. B. hominis was the most common parasite among the patients. Concentration techniques showed significantly higher (P < 0.05) detection rates of parasites compared with direct smear microscopy.
ISSN:2348-1471
2348-1471
DOI:10.4103/2348-1471.143326