Comparison Between The Efficacy Of Different Laboratory Methods For Diagnosis Of Cryptosporidium | Zendy

Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Kadir | Zendy; Nazakat F. Othman | Zendy; Yahya G. Salman | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Comparison Between The Efficacy Of Different Laboratory Methods For Diagnosis Of Cryptosporidium

Author(s) -

Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Kadir,

Nazakat F. Othman,

Yahya G. Salman

Publication year - 2004

Publication title -

the iraqi journal of veterinary medicine

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

eISSN - 2410-7409

pISSN - 1609-5693

DOI - 10.30539/ijvm.v28i1.1084

Subject(s) - malachite green , stain , cryptosporidium , methylene blue , staining , safranin , brilliant green , chromatography , microbiology and biotechnology , chemistry , medicine , biology , pathology , feces , organic chemistry , adsorption , photocatalysis , catalysis , biochemistry

This study was performed to detect the effective laboratory method for diagnosis of Cryptosporidium spp. in patients attending the laboratories of Al-Tameem General Hospital and Kirkuk Paediatric Hospital in Kirkuk city, for the period from the beginning of January to end of August 2000.. It was shown that the modified Ziehl-Neelsens stain (hot method) with methylene blue (counter stain) was most efficient in identification of Cryptosporidium oocysts (4.36%), followed by malachite green (counter stain) (1.94%) and modified Ziehl-Neelsen (cold method) with malachite green (counter stain), safranin methylene blue, lugol s iodine preparation (mounting) (0.97%) for each and the modified Ziehl-Neelsen stain (cold method) with methylene blue (counter stain) was the least efficient (0.84%). .

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research