Skip to main content

Table 3 Diagnostic tests used to assess zoonotic hookworm infections

From: Ancylostoma ceylanicum and other zoonotic canine hookworms: neglected public and animal health risks in the Asia–Pacific region

Method

Diagnostic performance

Advantages and disadvantages

References

Kato-Katz (KK) Technique

Sensitivity in areas of high infection intensity: 74% to 95%

Sensitivity in areas of low infection intensity: 41% to 56%

Performance is dependent on the utilization of the technique. 3-sample KK had higher sensitivity than 1-slide preparations

1. It is considered the gold standard for STH research.

2. It is easy to use in resource-lacking endemic areas.

3. It allows systematic determination of infection intensity.

4. The technique requires rapid examination of prepared slides when examining hookworms.

5. Accurate reading of the KK slides requires considerable staff training.

6. Species identification cannot be done using this technique.

Nikolay et al. (2014); Mbong Ngwese et al. (2020)

McMaster Technique

It has higher sensitivity when compared to KK: 44% for McMaster vs. 36% for KK

1. Easy to use in resource-lacking endemic areas

It is recommended as a robust (i.e., it has an accurate multiplication factor) and accurate (i.e., it provides reliable results) alternative to KK.

2. Various floating solutions can (e.g., table salt, sugar, Sodium nitrate, or Zinc sulfate).

3. Species identification cannot be done using this technique.

Inpankaew et al. (2014a, b); Zendejas-Heredia et al. (2021); Levecke et al. (2011)

ELISA (Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay) Techniques

IgG-ELISA had a sensitivity of 93.75% and specificity of 98.39 in assessing Ancylostoma caninum cutaneous larva migrans in human patients

Better diagnostic performance compared to coprological techniques

The techniques are easier to perform and require less sophisticated equipment compared to molecular techniques

Adam et al. (2023)

Molecular Techniques

qPCR had higher sensitivity than 2-slide KK preparations: 93% to 98% in qPCR vs. 32% to 34% in KK

qPCR reported prevalences three times higher than those reported by KK: 21.4% in qPCR vs. 7.5% in KK

Molecular techniques have better diagnostic performance than KK

These techniques can detect infections that KK misses

These require expensive reagents, equipment, and staff training

Species identification subsequent molecular analysis can be done using this technique

Benjamin-Chung et al. (2020); Mationg et al. (2017)