Table 2.
The sensitivity of the two different preservation methods and of five different copromicroscopic techniques for the diagnosis of T. canis , ancylostomidae and T. vulpis in 59 positive faecal samples
| Parasite | TOT positive samples | Fresh faeces | Faeces fixed in 5% formalin | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (%) | Sensitivity (%) | |||||||||||||
| Direct smear | Flotation in tube | Wisconsin | Flotation in tube | Wisconsin | Mini-FLOTAC | FLOTAC dual technique | ||||||||
| FS2 | FS7 | FS2 | FS7 | FS2 | FS7 | FS2 | FS7 | FS2 | FS7 | FS2 | FS7 | |||
| T. canis | 13 | 5.1** | 66.6* | 61.5** | 87.2 | 92.3 | 51.3** | 59.0** | 94.9 | 94.9 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Ancylostomidae | 21 | 1.6** | 96.8 | 82.5* | 100 | 96.8 | 98.4 | 71.4** | 100 | 96.8 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| T. vulpis | 25 | 14.7** | 66.6** | 58.6** | 89.3 | 96.0 | 74.6* | 65.3** | 98.6 | 97.3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Significant differences for different symbols (*, **) (P < 0.05).