Light microscopic diagnosis of @entity24516 in @entity1 with XXXX .

@entity1 @entity24516 @entity294 @entity1711 @entity1579 @entity1710 @entity791
OBJECTIVE: In the past, the diagnosis of chronic @entity24516 , an important cause of @entity294 in @entity1 with @entity791 , relied upon @entity1579 ( @entity1579 ). In this study, the sensitivity and specificity of the light microscopic (LM) diagnosis of @entity24516 was determined. METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive jejunal biopsies from @entity791 @entity1 were evaluated at St. Luke's-Roosevelt and George Washington University Hospital Centers by several light microscopic stains, including @entity1710 and @entity1711 , Gram stain, Giemsa stain, chromotrope 2R modified-trichrome stain, and Giemsa stain of mucosal touch preparations (TP). The results were compared to @entity1579 , as the gold standard, and to estimates of parasite burden from plastic section light microscopy and TP. RESULTS: @entity24516 was diagnosed by @entity1579 in 15 cases. The diagnosis also was reached by light microscopy in most cases. The sensitivities and negative predictive values of the different techniques ranged from 57% to 88%, while the specificities and positive predictive values ranged from 94% to 100%. All stains gave concordant results in 23 of 34 cases. The parasite burden was lower by @entity1579 (p < 0.05) and TP in cases with discordant (false-negative) results than in those with concordant results, suggesting that a false-negative diagnosis is related to a low parasite burden. CONCLUSION: It should be possible to render the diagnosis of @entity24516 by LM in most cases. @entity1579 may be needed for the minority of cases with low parasite burden.
