2018
DOI: 10.1590/1808-1657000502016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficacy of parasitological diagnosis methods in wild animals kept in captivity

Abstract: Parasitic diseases are common in wild animals kept in captivity, and the research of these parasites is a tool used in wildlife management actions. Once the method most used in the practice of veterinary laboratories is the direct examination, it was considered appropriate to report the parasitism in captivity wildlife comparing this technique with modified methods of Hoffman, Pons and Janer (HPJ) and Willis. Fresh feces were surveyed in eleven precincts with specimens of the class Reptilia, Birds and Mammalia… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This played a key part, as these owls were under a preventative health program, which included but was not limited to fecal sampling for coprological examination (wet mount, Gram stain, Diff-Quik stain, and flotation). However, even under a comprehensive medical protocol, the untimely and low sensitivity of certain diagnostic tools may delay treatment and worsen the overall prognosis of a certain parasitic infection [25,26]. Considering this diagnosis challenge along with the characteristics of the mixed-species outdoor enclosure and the possibility of nearby access for wild fauna and pathogens cross-transmission, all birds were under a deworming protocol every six months, which consisted of fenbendazole (50 mg/kg, per os (PO), once), ivermectin (0.2 mg/kg, PO, once, 15 days after fenbendazole) and toltrazuril (10 mg/kg, PO, three administrations, every other day (EOD), 7 days after ivermectin).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This played a key part, as these owls were under a preventative health program, which included but was not limited to fecal sampling for coprological examination (wet mount, Gram stain, Diff-Quik stain, and flotation). However, even under a comprehensive medical protocol, the untimely and low sensitivity of certain diagnostic tools may delay treatment and worsen the overall prognosis of a certain parasitic infection [25,26]. Considering this diagnosis challenge along with the characteristics of the mixed-species outdoor enclosure and the possibility of nearby access for wild fauna and pathogens cross-transmission, all birds were under a deworming protocol every six months, which consisted of fenbendazole (50 mg/kg, per os (PO), once), ivermectin (0.2 mg/kg, PO, once, 15 days after fenbendazole) and toltrazuril (10 mg/kg, PO, three administrations, every other day (EOD), 7 days after ivermectin).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following the guidelines of (Carvalho et al, 2018 andDe Carli 2001), samples of fresh feces were taken from the collected specimens. First, they were diluted with 1mL buffered saline solution between the slide and cover slip and examined by the direct method of observation under the microscope.…”
Section: -Parasitological Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%