You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Best practice
Some undesirable traps which can mislead the pathologist
  1. Victor Mercier1,
  2. Milène Sasso1,
  3. Pascal Kouyoumdjian2,
  4. Damien Sizaret3,
  5. Simon Benzimra4,
  6. Samia Gonzalez5,
  7. Guillaume Desoubeaux6
  1. 1 CNRS, Université Montpellier - IRD, Nîmes, France
  2. 2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nîmes and Montpellier University, Montpellier, France
  3. 3 Department of Pathology, CHU Trousseau, Tours, France
  4. 4 Laboratoire Biolab 33, Bordeaux, France
  5. 5 Département de Biopathologie, Hôpital Caremeau, Nîmes, France
  6. 6 Parasitologie-Mycologie-Médecine tropicale, CHRU Bretonneau, Tours, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Victor Mercier, IRD, Nîmes 30029, France; victor.mercier{at}gmail.com

Abstract

In clinical laboratories, the diagnosis of parasite diseases can sometimes be challenging for non-expert microbiologists. Indeed, in spite of the advent of the molecular biology, macroscopic and microscopic examinations still remain essential. Nonetheless, it is usually not automated and requires great skills to complete the correct diagnosis. It is not infrequent that inert elements mislead to erroneous diagnoses. Through three different concrete examples, this article aims at underscoring the actual risk of parasite misidentification and at highlighting the systematic approach to be conducted in order to enable reliable diagnosis.

  • pathology department
  • hospital
  • parasites
  • morphological and microscopic findings
  • anatomy

https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2021-207438

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Tony Mazzulli.

    • Contributors VM and GD were involved in writing and concept. MS was involved in reviewing. DS, MS, PK and SG were involved in reviewing and diagnosis.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.