Factors in the diagnosis of intestinal protozoa in man and in the interpretation of the findings
- 10 Downloads
The incidence of intestinal protozoal infection in all parts of the United States is such that each physician is confronted frequently by infected persons.
The exact relationship of these parasites to the host is not yet proven.
Proper statistical evaluation of protozoal infection and assay of the part played by a protozoon in the symptomatology of a patient depend on compensation for the fact that protozoa are not present daily in the stool of infected persons.
Material may be rendered unfit for examination by improper collection or by giving the examinee oil, barium or bismuth.
KeywordsEsophagitis Infected Person Multiple Infection Single Infection Kern Icterus
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Andrews, J. and Paulson, M.: Effect of Barium Sulphate Upon the Incidence of Human Protozoa.J. Lab. and Clin. Med., 16 :39, Oct., 1930.Google Scholar
- 3.Boeck, Wm. D. and Stiles, C. W. : Studies on Various Intestinal Parasites (especially amoeba) of Man. Hyg. Lab. Bull., 133,U. S. P. H. S., Oct., 1923.Google Scholar
- 4.Borland, J. L.: The Minimum Incidence of Intestinal Protozoa in a Representative Sampling of the Adult Population in Florida.South. M. J., 32:364, April, 1939.Google Scholar
- 5.Craig, C. F.: The Pathology of Amoebiasis in Carrier.Am. J. Trop. Med., 12:284, 1932.Google Scholar
- 6.Craig, C. F.: Amoebiasis and Amoebic Dysentery. Baltimore, Charles C. Thomas, 1934.Google Scholar
- 7.Craig, C. F. and Faust, E. C.: Clinical Parasitology. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 1937.Google Scholar
- 8.Dobell, C. : Medical Research Commission. Special Report Series, No. 4, London, 1917.Google Scholar
- 9.Faust, E. C.: Study of Intestinal Protozoa of a Representative Sample of Wise County, Southwest Virginia.Am. J. Hyg., 11:371, 1930.Google Scholar
- 10.Faust, et al: A Critical Study of Clinical Laboratory Technique for the Diagnosis of Protozoan Cysts and Helminth Eggs in Feces. 1. Preliminary Communication.Am. J. Trop. Med., 18:169, March, 1938.Google Scholar
- 11.Howard, J.: The Clinical Significance of the Carrier State in Amoebiasis.Am. J. Dig. Dis., 6 :506, Oct., 1939.Google Scholar
- 12.James, Wm.: Diagnosis of Intestinal Amoebiasis.J. A. M. A., 89:1469, Oct., 1927.Google Scholar
- 13.James, Wm.: Some Observations of Intestinal Amoebiasis Due to Infections with E. histolytica.Ann. Int. Med., 11:171, Aug., 1928.Google Scholar
- 14.James, Wm.: Human Amoebiasis Due to Infections with E. histolytica.Ann. Trop. Med., 22:201, Aug., 1928.Google Scholar
- 15.Manson-Bahr, P.: The Dysenteric Disorders. Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins, 1939.Google Scholar
- 16.Meleny, H. E., Bishop, E. L. and Leathers, W. S.: Investigations of E. histolytica and Other Intestinal Protozoa in Tennessee. III. A State-wide Survey of Intestinal Protozoa in Man.Am. J. Hyg., 16:523, 1933.Google Scholar
- 17.Milam, D. R. and Meleny, H. E.: Investigations of E. Histolytica and Other Intestinal Protozoa in Man.Am. J. Hyg., 14:325, 1931.Google Scholar
- 18.Morrison, L. and Swalm, W.: A New Effective Parasiticide in Giardiasis.Am. J. Dig. Dis., 6:325, July, 1939.Google Scholar
- 19.Paulson, M. and Andrews, J. M.: The Role of Symptoms and Signs in Amoebiasis.Ann. Int. Med., 13 :64, July, 1939.Google Scholar
- 20.Paulson, M. and Andrews, J. M. : Studies on the Human Large Intestine. Protozoa, Their Detection and Incidence by Sigmoido-scope, Their Cultivation. Some Observations on the Bacteriology of the Large Intestine. Transactions of the 30th Annual Meeting of the American Gastro-enterological Association.Google Scholar
- 21.Wenyon, C. M.: Protozoology. Vol. I, pp. 252–653, New York, William Wood and Company.Google Scholar