Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:2623406rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0202010lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2623406lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0220825lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2623406lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205468lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:issue4lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:dateCreated1990-3-26lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:abstractText"Coprotest" is a device used for parasitological examination of the stools that has been marketed in Brazil with no previous literature support. Therefore, we decided to evaluate the usefulness of the procedure using "Coprotest", comparing it with the routine methods by Hoffman et al., Faust et al., and Rugai et al. Taking into consideration only positive samples, we observed the following figures, according to each technique: Hofmann et al.--98 (47.34%); Faust et al.--119 (57.48%); Rugai et al., only for larva detection--21 (10.14%); "Coprotest"--115 (55.55%). We concluded that "Coprotest" in addition to its operational qualities, has the merits that allow its use together with other techniques for parasitosis diagnosis. Nevertheless it has not modified the previous situation, since more than one technique must still be used, as we have noted for detection of Strongyloides stercoralis larvae in this instance.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:languageporlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:issn0041-8781lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:de SouzaH BHBlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:Amato NetoVVlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:CamposRRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:FosterRRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MiyamotoAAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MoreiraA AAAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:PintoP LPLlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MatsubaraLLlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BohiR LRLlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorpubmed-author:do...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:volume44lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:pagination153-5lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:dateRevised2007-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2623406-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2623406-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2623406-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2623406-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2623406-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:articleTitle[Evaluation of the usefulness of the Coprotest for parasitologic examination of feces].lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2623406pubmed:publicationTypeEnglish Abstractlld:pubmed