@article{fdi:010068744,
  title = {{B}ias due to methods of parasite detection when estimating prevalence of infection of {T}riatoma infestans by {T}rypanosoma cruzi},
  author = {{L}ardeux, {F}r{\'e}d{\'e}ric and {A}liaga, {C}. and {D}epick{\`e}re, {S}t{\'e}phanie},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}he study aimed to quantify the bias from parasite detection methods in the estimation of the prevalence of infection of {T}riatoma infestans by {T}rypanosoma cruzi, the agent of {C}hagas disease. {T}hree common protocols that detect {T}. cruzi in a sample of 640 wild-caught {T}. infestans were compared: (1) the microscopic observation of insect fecal droplets, (2) a {PCR} protocol targeting mini-exon genes of {T}. cruzi ({M}e{M}-{PCR}), and (3) a {PCR} protocol targeting a satellite repeated unit of the parasite. {A}greement among protocols was computed using {K}rippendorff {K}. {T}he sensitivity ({S}e) and specificity ({S}p) of each protocol was estimated using latent class models. {T}he {PCR} protocols were more sensitive ({S}e > 0.97) than microscopy ({S}e = 0.53) giving a prevalence of infection of 17-18%, twice as high as microscopy. {M}icroscopy may not be as specific as {PCR} if {T}rypanosomatid-like organisms make up a high proportion of the sample. {F}or small {T}. infestans, microscopy is not efficient, giving a prevalence of 1.5% when {PCR} techniques gave 10.7%. {T}he {PCR} techniques were in agreement ({K} = 0.94) but not with microscopy ({K} never significant with both {PCR} techniques). {A}mong the {PCR} protocols, the {M}e{M}-{PCR} was the most efficient ({S}e=1; {S}p=1).},
  keywords = {{T}rypanosoma cruzi ; {T}riatoma infestans ; microscopy ; {PCR} ; sensitivity ; specificity ; {BOLIVIE} ; {ANDES}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{J}ournal of {V}ector {E}cology},
  volume = {41},
  numero = {2},
  pages = {285--291},
  ISSN = {1081-1710},
  year = {2016},
  DOI = {10.1111/jvec.12224},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010068744},
}