Laboratory Medicine and Quality Assurance

Table. 3. Table 3

Performance of laboratories between concentration method and direct smear method

Trial	Identification result	Concentration method	Direct smear method
MPS-20-03	Correct identification	No parasite seen (n=109, 97.3%)	No parasite seen (n=90, 94.6%)
	Incorrect identification	Cryptosporidium sp. (n=1), Endolimax nana (n=1), Hymenolepis nana (n=1)	Hookworm (n=2), Ascaris sp. (n=1), Clonorchis sp. (n=1), Schistosoma japonicum (n=1)
MPS-20-04	Correct identification	Trichuris trichiura (n=105, 100.0%)	Trichuris trichiura (n=105, 96.4%)
	Incorrect identification		Taenia sp. (n=1), Metagonimus yokogawai (n=1), Clonorchis sp. (n=1), no parasite seen (n=1)
MPS-20-05	Correct identification	No parasite seen (n=105, 100.0%)	No parasite seen (n=103, 97.2%)
	Incorrect identification		Clonorchis sp. (n=2), Ascaris sp. (n=1)
MPF-21-01	Correct identification	Anisakis spp. (n=68, 98.6%)	Anisakis spp. (n=133, 97.0%)
	Incorrect identification	Ascaris sp. (n=1)	Ascaris sp. (n=2), Enterobius vermicularis (n=2)
MPF-21-02	Correct identification	No parasite seen (n=99, 100.0%)	No parasite seen (n=106, 99.1%)
	Incorrect identification		Enterobius vermicularis (n=1)

There was no significant difference in correct identification rates between concentration method and direct smear method.