Diagnostic Value of Gauze Filtration Technique: A Comparison with Conventional Methods in a Diagnostic Laboratory in Pakistan

Background: Intestinal parasites cause significant morbidity and impact human development with an enormous global burden. Diagnosis of intestinal parasites by conventional methods has several limitations. The gauze filtration technique is a relatively simple method that has been shown to identify intestinal parasites with a high sensitivity and specificity. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of this technique as compared to more conventional methods in a large acclaimed laboratory within Pakistan. Methods: A total of 50 stool samples collected for routine diagnostic workup from patients age between 2-70 years were collected from the parasitology section of the Aga Khan University Hospital Clinical Laboratory. A direct wet mount, sedimentation technique, and gauze filtration technique were performed on all of the stool samples, and the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were analyzed. Results: It was observed that the number of organisms observed by gauze filtration as compared to direct wet mount and sedimentation technique was higher for B. hominis, G. lamblia cysts and trophozoites, and I. bütschlii. Also, the detection rate was significantly higher for B. hominis and G. lamblia cysts using the gauze filtration technique. The sensitivity and specificity of the gauze filtration technique were found to be 95.8% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: There is a significantly better stool sample parasite detection rate using the gauze filtration technique as compared to the conventional sedimentation techniques. The utility of the gauze filtration technique seems economically and technically feasible for diagnostic laboratories in resource-limited settings

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.The aim of this study was to inform vaccination prioritization by modelling the impact of vaccination on elective inpatient surgery. The study found that patients aged at least 70 years needing elective surgery should be prioritized alongside other high-risk groups during early vaccination programmes. Once vaccines are rolled out to younger populations, prioritizing surgical patients is advantageous