作者: M. Kvac , D. Kvetonova , G. Puzova , O. Ditrich
DOI: 10.1046/J.1439-0450.2003.00694.X
关键词: Staining 、 Veterinary medicine 、 Feces 、 Microbiology 、 Diagnostic methods 、 Cryptosporidium 、 Caesium chloride 、 Cryptosporidium parvum 、 Biology 、 Cryptosporidium andersoni
摘要: Summary This study involved the comparison of suitability different methods for routine diagnostics Cryptosporidium spp. Two staining methods, one concentration–sedimentation method, seven concentration–floatation and combined floatation–sedimentation method were compared. The tested with two concentrations (1 × 105 1 × 106/g) C. parvum andersoni. evaluated using light microscope, magnification 400× concentration 1000× stained samples respectively. Specificity both was 95–100%. Ziehl-Neelsen P < 0.01 is more suitable identification andersoni modified Milacek-Vitovec parvum. Concerning specificity sensitivity, floatation–concentration by Sheather found to provide best results all selected methods. merthiolate iodine formaldehyde (MIFC) least specific one. concerning sensitivity costs floatation caesium chloride (CsCl) a 29%.