Advertisement

A study of laboratory methods for diagnosing Endamoeba histolytica and their application to 5,048 persons from the Chicago area

  • Viola M. Young
  • Oscar Felsenfeld
  • William H. Shlaes
  • Tama Yoshimura
  • Frederick Steigmann
Article

Summary

The paper presents a complication of extensive studies made on methods used for the detection of Endamoeba histolytica, and the application of those methods to the examination of more than 13,000 fecal specimens from 5,048 persons during the past 7 years in Chicago and Cook County, Illinois. Combined fecal and proctosig-moidoscopic specimens examined within 30 minutes after collection, employing hematoxylin-stained slides and zinc sulfate flotation, gave optimal results. The irregular behavior of E. histolytica at different temperatures is presented, necessitating their preservation if examination is not carried out within 30 minutes. Advantages of polyvinyl alcohol and Schaudinn's fixative for hematoxylin stained slides and those of formalin and D’Antoni’s iodine for flotation were pointed out. Results of stool examinations for other components than parasites and bacteria were compiled and their lack of value for etiological, but usefulness in guidance of symptomatic treatment were shown. The approximate proportion of E. histolytica infestations in patients suffering from chronic intestinal disturbances in the Chicago area is estimated as 20 ± 3 percent.

Keywords

Polyvinyl Alcohol Chronic Diarrhea Stool Specimen Shigellosis Fecal Specimen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Refeeences

  1. 1.
    Sodeman, W. A.: General Discussion on Amebiasis Panel. Am. J. Trop. Med., 30:167, 1950.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bargen, J.: Amebiasis (Amebic Colitis): Present Day Management. Illinois Med. J., 97:129–137, 1950.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Craig, C. F.: Laboratory Diagnosis of Protozoan Diseases. 2nd ed., Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1948.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gradwohl, R. B. H.: Clinical Laboratory Methods and Diagnosis. 4th ed., C. V. Mosby, St. Louis, 1948.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mackie, T. F., Hunter, G. W. and Worth, C. B.: A Manual of Tropical Medicine. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1945.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dobell, C. and Laidlaw, P. P.: On the Cultivation of E. histolytiea and Other Entozoic Amoebae. Parasitology, 15:283–291, 1926.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ratcliffe, H. L. and Parkins, P. V.: On the Use of Mal- lory’s Phosphotungstic Acid Hematoxylin for Staining Intestinal Protozoa. J. Lab. & Clin. M., 29:534–535, 1944.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felsenfeld, O. and Young, V. M.: An Improved Method for the Examination of Intestinal Protozoa. Am. J. Clin. Path., 75:47–49, 1945.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Felsenfeld, O. and Young, V. M.: Comments on the Laboratory Diagnosis of Enteric Infections. Am. J. Digest. Dis., 14: 392–397, 1947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Craig, C. F. and Faust, E. C: Clinical Parasitology. 4th ed., Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1945.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faust, E. C, Sawitz, W., Tobi, J., Odom, V., Peres, C. and Lincicome, D. R.: Comparative Efficiency of Various Technics for the Diagnosis of Protozoa and Helminths in Feces. J. Parasitology, 25:241–262, 1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weinrich, D. H., Stabler, R. M., and Arnett, J. H.: E. histolytica and Other Intestinal Protozoa in 1060 College Freshmen. Am. J. Trop. M.,15:331–345, 1935.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McMullen, P. B. and Gray, J. K.: The Incidence of Intestinal Parasites in Fecal Samples Collected in Eastern Oklahoma. Southern M. J., 34:177–180, 1941.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldman, M.: Use of Polyvinyl Alcohol to Preserve Fecal Smears for Subsequent Staining. Science,106:42, 1947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldman, M.: Polyvinyl-Alcohol-Fixative Method for Shipping Fecal Smears. Publ. Health Lab., 6:38–39, 1948.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Magath, E. B. and Meleney, H. E.: The Complement Fixation Reaction for Amebiasis. Am. J. Trop. M.,20:211–238, 1940.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Felsenfeld, O. and Young, V. M.: A Quantitative Method for the Determination of the Amebieidal Activity of Drugs in Vitro. Trans. Am. Microscop. Soc, 64:286–288, 1945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shlaes, W. H.: Amebiasis in the Temperate Zone. Chicago M. School Quart., 11:41–49, 1950.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Felsenfeld, O.: Comparison of Methods Used for the Detection of Endamoeba histolytica. J. Parasitol., 31:Dec. Suppl., 7. 1945.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Felsenfeld, O. and Young, V. M.: Correlation of Intestinal Protozoa and Enteric Microorganisms of Known and Doubtful Pathogenicity. Am. J. Digest Dis., 13:233–234, 1946.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Young, V. M. and Felsenfeld, O.: The Incidence of Em- badomonas Intestinalis Wenyon and O’Conner in Food Handlers and Diarrheic Patients of Mental Hospitals. J. Parasitol.,30:34–35, 1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Young, V. M.: The Incidence of Intestinal Protozoa in Mental Patients and in Cases Showing Symptoms of Amebic Dysentery. J. Parasitol.,30: Aug. Suppl., 8, 1944.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Felsenfeld, O.: Amebiasis in Children. Proc. Am. Fed. Clin. Res., 3:74–75, 1947.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sandfield Publishing Company 1951

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viola M. Young
    • 1
  • Oscar Felsenfeld
    • 1
  • William H. Shlaes
    • 1
  • Tama Yoshimura
    • 1
  • Frederick Steigmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Hektoen Institute for Medical ResearchEnteric Service of Cook County HospitalChicago

Personalised recommendations