Table 1.

A relative comparison of diagnostic tools for the detection and quantification of Ascaridia galli infections in chickens at individual and flock level^a.

Sample-base	Necropsyb	Coproscopy			Serology		Molecular tools
Method	Section of intestine	McMaster	Mini-FLOTAC	Copro-ELISA	ELISA		ddPCR	LAMP-LFD
Target	Adult and juvenile worm stages	Worm eggs	Worm eggs	Worm antigen	Plasma IgY	Egg-yolk IgY	Worm DNA	Worm DNA
Qualitative diagnostic performancec	+++	++	+++	+++	+++	+++	NI	NI
Correlation to adult wormsd	(+++)	++	++	+(+)	+	+	NI	NI
Correlation to larvae	(+++)	0	0	++	+++	+++	NI	NI
Early diagnosise	+++	0	0	++(+)	+++	+++	0	0
Species-specificityf	Yes	0	0	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Invasivenessg	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Simultaneous sample analysis	+	++	++	+++	+++	+++	+++	+++
Performance speed	+	+++	+++	++	++	++	+	+
Ethical concern	+++	0	0	0	+	0	0	0
Sample handling and storage	++	+++	+++	+++	+++	+++	+	+
Costh	+++	+	++	++	++	++	+++	+++

0: non-existing; +: low; ++: moderate; +++; high: NI not investigated yet.

^aThe comparisons of methods are based on the best knowledge and experience of the authors, but may nevertheless be subjective.

^bThis includes both wet-sieving to recover adult and larval stages from the intestinal lumen and tissue digestion to recover larvae.

^cIt is based on the assessment of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios or accuracy through ROC analysis.

^dImplies the correlation between adult worm counts or worm size or infection dose to measured variable.

^eRefers to the ability of a method to detect infections before the worm has maturated, i.e. lays eggs.

^fRelates to the distinction between Ascaridia galli and Heterakis gallinarum.

^gRefers to the need to cull or bleed birds for sampling.

^hApproximate expenses of analysis per sample, based on sample material (e.g. chicken vs. faeces), the time required by a qualified technician and the consumables needed.