Laboratory Medicine and Quality Assurance

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.

Lab Med Qual Assur 2022;44:185~190 https://doi.org/10.15263/jlmqa.2022.44.4.185
© Lab Med Qual Assur