control de calidad en el diagnÓstico coproparasitolÓgico en laboratorios clÍnicos pÚblicos de ciudad bolÍvar, venezuela i quality control in coproparasitologic diagnosis in public clinic laboratories of ciudad bolÍvar, venezuela

Clicks: 202
ID: 223346
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #14 of 17 articles by views in psicologia: ciência e profissão

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The quality control during coproparasitologic diagnosis was evaluated in seven public laboratories located in Ciudad Bolivar, Bolivar State. Each clinical laboratory selected was informed of the study and was given 22 fecal samples (20 fresh and 2 preserved). The parasites in these samples were only known to the authors. These samples were analyzed and each laboratory was given a survey based on the items to meet during the three stages of coproparasitologic analysis, according to the norm COVENIN ISO 15189:2004. A total of 154 samples of fresh and preserved feces were analyzed by participating laboratories. The parasites that were most difficult to be identified were Entamoeba histolytica / E. dispar (85.7%), Chilomastix mesnilii (85.7%) and Blastocystis spp. (82.1%), among the protozoa, and Trichuris trichiura (100%) and Ta e nia spp. (78.5%) among the helminths. The main misdiagnoses in fresh feces samples were incomplete diagnosis (58.7%) and changes in diagnosis (40%). Applying a qualifying scale only one laboratory performed a Good diagnosis (13.2%), two Regular (28.5%) and four performed Poor diagnosis (57.1%). In conclusion, the laboratories evaluated do not meet all the procedures in the preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical phases of coproparasitologic diagnosis established in the Venezuelan regulation
Reference Key
blanco2018sabercontrol Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Ytalia Blanco;Maritzabel Hernández;Francis Monroy; Iván Amaya;Mercedes Romero;Rodolfo Devera
Journal psicologia: ciência e profissão
Year 2018
DOI
DOI not found
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.