FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Pathogens / Comparing the Performance of McMaster, FLOTAC and Mini-FLOTA...
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2025; 14(11); 1075; doi: 10.3390/pathogens14111075

Comparing the Performance of McMaster, FLOTAC and Mini-FLOTAC Techniques in the Diagnosis of Strongylid Infections in Two Horse Populations in Portugal.

Abstract: The diagnosis of gastrointestinal (GI) strongyle infections in equids is still mainly performed using quantitative coprological techniques, like the McMaster (McM), but more sensitive and precise techniques, like FLOTAC (FL) and Mini-FLOTAC (MF), have been proposed over the past 20 years. The present study aimed to compare the analytical performance of these three methods in the diagnosis of strongyle infections in horses. Between October 2023 and June 2024, 32 fecal samples were processed using the McM, FL and MF techniques to identify strongyles' eggs, estimate their shedding (eggs per gram of feces, EPG), standard errors, sensitivities, precisions, and perform Spearman's correlation and Cohen's kappa analyses. The McM detected a higher shedding (584 ± 179 EPG), in comparison with FL and MF, with both these differences being statistically significant ( < 0.001); FL achieved the highest precision (72%), which differed significantly from McM ( = 0.03). All techniques were positively (r = 0.92-0.96) and significantly ( < 0.001) correlated and shared substantial (k = 0.67-0.76) and significant ( < 0.001) agreement. The MF achieved the highest diagnostic sensitivity (93%), followed by FL (89%) and McM (85%), although not significantly ( = 0.90). These results suggest the usefulness of implementing FL or MF methods in equine medicine for precise and, in the latter case, quick parasitological diagnosis.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-10-22 PubMed ID: 41305313PubMed Central: PMC12655540DOI: 10.3390/pathogens14111075Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Comparative Study

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

Overview

  • This study compares three laboratory techniques—McMaster, FLOTAC, and Mini-FLOTAC—for diagnosing gastrointestinal strongyle infections in horses.
  • The primary focus was on evaluating and contrasting their sensitivity, precision, and overall effectiveness in detecting parasite eggs in fecal samples from horses in Portugal.

Background

  • Gastrointestinal (GI) strongyle infections are common parasitic infections affecting horses, where nematode worms lay eggs detected in feces.
  • Accurate and precise quantitative diagnosis (measuring eggs per gram of feces or EPG) is essential for monitoring infection levels and guiding treatment.
  • McMaster (McM) is a classic coprological technique widely used for quantifying parasite eggs in equids.
  • Newer methods, FLOTAC (FL) and Mini-FLOTAC (MF), have been developed to improve sensitivity (ability to detect infections) and precision (consistency and reproducibility) but needed comparative evaluation in horses.

Methodology

  • Timeframe: Samples collected from October 2023 to June 2024.
  • Sample size: 32 fecal samples obtained from two different horse populations in Portugal.
  • Each sample was processed using the three techniques (McMaster, FLOTAC, Mini-FLOTAC) to detect strongyle eggs and quantify their concentration (eggs per gram, EPG).
  • Statistical analyses conducted included:
    • Calculation of mean EPG and standard errors for each technique.
    • Assessment of diagnostic sensitivity (ability to correctly identify infected samples).
    • Precision measured as consistent reproducibility in repeated counts.
    • Spearman’s correlation to assess the relationship between techniques’ EPG readings.
    • Cohen’s kappa to measure the agreement in infection detection among techniques.

Key Results

  • Egg Shedding (EPG):
    • McMaster reported the highest mean egg counts at 584 ± 179 EPG.
    • Both FLOTAC and Mini-FLOTAC showed significantly lower EPG results than McMaster (p < 0.001), indicating McMaster detected a heavier egg load.

  • Precision:
    • FLOTAC demonstrated the highest precision at 72%, significantly better than McMaster (p = 0.03).
    • Precision indicates FLOTAC gave more consistent repeated measurements compared to McMaster.

  • Diagnostic Sensitivity:
    • Mini-FLOTAC exhibited the greatest sensitivity at 93%, followed by FLOTAC at 89%, and McMaster at 85%.
    • Differences in sensitivity between methods were not statistically significant (p = 0.90).
    • This means all methods performed similarly well in detecting infected animals.

  • Correlation and Agreement:
    • All three techniques showed very strong positive correlations in egg counts, with Spearman’s r values between 0.92 and 0.96 (p < 0.001).
    • Cohen’s kappa statistics indicated substantial agreement (k = 0.67-0.76), confirming consistent infection diagnosis between methods.

Interpretation of Findings

  • While McMaster gave higher egg counts, FLOTAC offered superior precision, meaning it was more reliable in repeated measurements despite reporting lower EPG values.
  • Mini-FLOTAC showed the highest sensitivity, making it very effective for detecting positive infections rapidly.
  • Strong correlations and agreement suggest that these methods are largely interchangeable for diagnosing strongyle infections but have varying strengths depending on the context (e.g., speed, precision).
  • The minor differences imply that adopting newer techniques like FLOTAC or Mini-FLOTAC could improve diagnostic accuracy in equine parasitology.

Conclusions and Recommendations

  • The study highlights the usefulness of implementing FLOTAC or Mini-FLOTAC techniques in routine equine parasitological diagnostics.
  • FLOTAC is particularly recommended when precise quantification is important, such as in research or monitoring programs.
  • Mini-FLOTAC offers the advantage of quicker diagnosis combined with high sensitivity, benefiting clinical settings requiring fast results.
  • Continuing to rely solely on McMaster may be less optimal due to lower precision and sensitivity despite higher egg counts.
  • Overall, transition toward these novel techniques promises enhanced detection and management of strongylid infections in horses, contributing to improved animal health.

Cite This Article

APA
Varandas M, Lozano J, Agrícola R, Gomes L, Rosa T, Magalhães M, Lamas L, Rinaldi L, Oliveira M, Paz-Silva A, Madeira de Carvalho L. (2025). Comparing the Performance of McMaster, FLOTAC and Mini-FLOTAC Techniques in the Diagnosis of Strongylid Infections in Two Horse Populations in Portugal. Pathogens, 14(11), 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14111075

Publication

Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2076-0817
NlmUniqueID: 101596317
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 11
PII: 1075

Researcher Affiliations

Varandas, Marta
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
Lozano, João
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
Agrícola, Ricardo
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Veterinary Hospital, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lusófona University, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal.
Gomes, Lídia
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
Rosa, Teresa
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
Magalhães, Mariana
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
Lamas, Luís
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
Rinaldi, Laura
  • Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, 80137 Naples, Italy.
Oliveira, Manuela
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Global Change and Sustainability Institute (CHANGE), Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal.
Paz-Silva, Adolfo
  • Control of Parasites Research Group (COPAR, GI-2120), Department of Animal Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary, University of Santiago de Compostela, 27002 Lugo, Spain.
Madeira de Carvalho, Luís
  • Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Animal Health (CIISA), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisbon, Portugal.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Feces / parasitology
  • Horse Diseases / diagnosis
  • Horse Diseases / parasitology
  • Portugal / epidemiology
  • Parasite Egg Count / methods
  • Parasite Egg Count / veterinary
  • Strongylida Infections / veterinary
  • Strongylida Infections / diagnosis
  • Strongylida Infections / parasitology
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Strongyle Infections, Equine / diagnosis
  • Strongyle Infections, Equine / parasitology

Grant Funding

  • CIISA/FMV Project UIDB/00276/2020 / Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia
  • LA/P/0059/2020-AL4AnimalS / Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia
  • PhD fellowship 2020.09037.BD (doi:10.54499/2020.09037.BD) / Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia
  • Project ED431B 2021/07 / Consellería de Cultura, Educación, Formación Profesional e Universidades

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 40 references
  1. Saeed M, Beveridge I, Abbas G, Beasley A, Bauquier J, Wilkes E, Jacobson C, Hughes K, El-Hage C, O’Handley R. Systematic Review of Gastrointestinal Nematodes of Horses from Australia. Parasit Vectors 2019;12:188.
    doi: 10.1186/s13071-019-3445-4pmc: PMC6489199pubmed: 31036059google scholar: lookup
  2. Jürgenschellert L, Krücken J, Bousquet E, Bartz J, Heyer N, Nielsen M, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G. Occurrence of Strongylid Nematode Parasites on Horse Farms in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany, With High Seroprevalence of Strongylus vulgaris Infection. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:892920.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.892920pmc: PMC9226773pubmed: 35754549google scholar: lookup
  3. Lopes A, Melo Franco B, Nunes T, Sousa S, Fabrica P, São Braz B, Madeira de Carvalho L. Distribution, Major Epidemiological Features and Control of Equid Gastrointestinal Parasites in Mainland Portugal. In: Freitas Duarte A., Lopes da Costa L., editors. Advances in Animal Health, Medicine and Production. Springer; Cham, Switzerland: 2020. pp. 344–369.
    doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-61981-7_19google scholar: lookup
  4. Bowman D. Helminths. In: Bowman D., editor. Georgis’ Parasitology for Veterinarians. Elsevier; St. Louis, MO, USA: 2021. pp. 135–260.
  5. Elghryani N, McOwan T, Mincher C, Duggan V, de Waal T. Estimating the Prevalence and Factors Affecting the Shedding of Helminth Eggs in Irish Equine Populations. Animals 2023;13:581.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13040581pmc: PMC9951768pubmed: 36830368google scholar: lookup
  6. Adhikari R, Dhakal M, Ghimire T. Intestinal Parasitism in Working Horses and Associated Zoonotic Risks in Lowlands of Nepal. Probl Infect Parasit Dis 2024;52:34–46.
    doi: 10.58395/pkz5qg48google scholar: lookup
  7. Boelow H, Krücken J, Thomas E, Mirams G, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G. Comparison of FECPAKG2, a Modified Mini-FLOTAC Technique and Combined Sedimentation and Flotation for the Coproscopic Examination of Helminth Eggs in Horses. Parasit Vectors 2022;15:166.
    doi: 10.1186/s13071-022-05266-ypmc: PMC9097362pubmed: 35549990google scholar: lookup
  8. Mathewos M, Teshome D, Fesseha H. Study on Gastrointestinal Nematodes of Equines in and around Bekoji, South Eastern Ethiopia. J Parasitol Res 2022;2022:8210160.
    doi: 10.1155/2022/8210160pmc: PMC9170501pubmed: 35677390google scholar: lookup
  9. Ghafar A, Abbas G, King J, Jacobson C, Hughes K, El-Hage C, Beasley A, Bauquier J, Wilkes E, Hurley J. Comparative Studies on Faecal Egg Counting Techniques Used for the Detection of Gastrointestinal Parasites of Equines: A Systematic Review. Curr Res Parasitol Vector-Borne Dis 2021;1:100046.
    doi: 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2021.100046pmc: PMC8906068pubmed: 35284858google scholar: lookup
  10. Kaplan R, Denwood M, Nielsen M, Thamsborg S, Torgerson P, Gilleard J, Dobson R, Vercruysse J, Levecke B. World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) Guideline for Diagnosing Anthelmintic Resistance Using the Faecal Egg Count Reduction Test in Ruminants, Horses and Swine. Vet Parasitol 2023;318:109936.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2023.109936pubmed: 37121092google scholar: lookup
  11. Abbas G, Bauquier J, Beasley A, Jacobson C, El-Hage C, Wilkes E, Carrigan P, Cudmore L, Hurley J, Beveridge I. Worm Control Practices Used by Thoroughbred Horse Managers in Australia: A National Survey. Vet Parasitol 2024;327:110116.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2024.110116pubmed: 38244523google scholar: lookup
  12. Abbas G, Stevenson M, Bauquier J, Beasley A, Jacobson C, El-Hage C, Wilkes E, Carrigan P, Cudmore L, Hurley J. Assessment of Worm Control Practices Recommended by Equine Veterinarians in Australia. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1305360.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1305360pmc: PMC10654783pubmed: 38026649google scholar: lookup
  13. Abbas G, Ghafar A, McConnell E, Beasley A, Bauquier J, Wilkes E, El-Hage C, Carrigan P, Cudmore L, Hurley J. A National Survey of Anthelmintic Resistance in Ascarid and Strongylid Nematodes in Australian Thoroughbred Horses. Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist 2024;24:100517.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijpddr.2023.11.006pmc: PMC10757041pubmed: 38064906google scholar: lookup
  14. Ahuir-Baraja A, Cibot F, Llobat L, Garijo M. Anthelmintic Resistance: Is a Solution Possible?. Exp Parasitol 2021;230:108169.
    doi: 10.1016/j.exppara.2021.108169pubmed: 34627787google scholar: lookup
  15. Cooper L, Caffe G, Cerutti J, Nielsen M, Anziani O. Reduced Efficacy of Ivermectin and Moxidectin against Parascaris Spp. in Foals from Argentina. Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Rep 2020;20:100388.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vprsr.2020.100388pubmed: 32448542google scholar: lookup
  16. Elghryani N, Lawlor A, McOwan T, de Waal T. Unravelling the Effectiveness of Anthelmintic Treatments on Equine Strongyles on Irish Farms. Animals 2024;14:1958.
    doi: 10.3390/ani14131958pmc: PMC11240484pubmed: 38998069google scholar: lookup
  17. Merlin A, Delerue M. Helminth Control Practices Used by Equine Keepers in France: A National Survey. Prev. Vet. Med. 2025;245:106695.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106695pubmed: 40997369google scholar: lookup
  18. Walshe N, Burrell A, Kenny U, Mulcahy G, Duggan V, Regan A. A Qualitative Study of Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Sustainable Parasite Control on Thoroughbred Studs in Ireland. Vet. Parasitol. 2023;317:109904.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2023.109904pubmed: 36907136google scholar: lookup
  19. Lozano J, Pombo C, Salmo R, Cazapal-Monteiro C, Arias M, Carvalho D, Lordelo M, Batista A, Bernardino R, Rinaldi L. Testing Mini-FLOTAC for the Monitorization of Gastrointestinal Parasitic Infections in Birds Kept at Four Iberian Zoological Institutions. J. Zool. Bot. Gard. 2024;5:294–304.
    doi: 10.3390/jzbg5020020google scholar: lookup
  20. Alowanou G, Adenilé A, Akouèdegni G, Bossou A, Zinsou F, Akakpo G, Kifouly H, Rinaldi L, von Samson-Himmelstjerma G, Cringoli G. A Comparison of Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster Techniques in Detecting Gastrointestinal Parasites in West Africa Dwarf Sheep and Goats and Crossbreed Rabbits. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2021;49:30–38.
    doi: 10.1080/09712119.2021.1876703google scholar: lookup
  21. Mohammedsalih K, Hassan S, Juma F, Saeed S, Bashar A, von Samson-Himmelstjerna G, Krücken J. Comparative Assessment of Mini-FLOTAC, McMaster and Semi-Quantitative Flotation for Helminth Egg Examination in Camel Faeces. Parasit Vectors 2025;18:5.
    doi: 10.1186/s13071-024-06637-3pmc: PMC11726973pubmed: 39800725google scholar: lookup
  22. Rinaldi L, Levecke B, Bosco A, Ianniello D, Pepe P, Charlier J, Cringoli G, Vercruysse J. Comparison of Individual and Pooled Faecal Samples in Sheep for the Assessment of Gastrointestinal Strongyle Infection Intensity and Anthelmintic Drug Efficacy Using McMaster and Mini-FLOTAC. Vet. Parasitol. 2014;205:216–223.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.06.011pubmed: 25002307google scholar: lookup
  23. Vieira O, Macedo L, Bezerra-Santos M, dos Santos L, de Mendonça C, Alves L, Ramos R, de Carvalho G. Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster Egg Counting Method for Detection of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Small Ruminants: A Comparison Study. Med. Vet. 2021;15:119–124.
    doi: 10.26605/medvet-v15n2-4397google scholar: lookup
  24. Class C, Fialho P, Alves L, Silveira R, Amendoeira M, Knackfuss F, Barbosa A. Comparison of McMaster and Mini-FLOTAC Techniques for the Diagnosis of Internal Parasites in Pigs. Rev. Bras. Parasitol. Vet. 2023;32:e013322.
    doi: 10.1590/s1984-29612023013pmc: PMC10062010pubmed: 36995837google scholar: lookup
  25. Dias de Castro L, Abrahão C, Buzatti A, Molento M, Bastianetto E, Rodrigues D, Lopes L, Silva M, de Freitas M, Conde M. Comparison of McMaster and Mini-FLOTAC Fecal Egg Counting Techniques in Cattle and Horses. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2017;10:132–135.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vprsr.2017.10.003pubmed: 31014585google scholar: lookup
  26. Lozano J, Almeida C, Victório A, Melo P, Rodrigues J, Rinaldi L, Cringoli G, Gomes L, Oliveira M, Paz-Silva A. Implementation of Mini-FLOTAC in Routine Diagnosis of Coccidia and Helminth Infections in Domestic and Exotic Birds. Vet. Sci. 2021;8:160.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci8080160pmc: PMC8402632pubmed: 34437482google scholar: lookup
  27. Lozano J, Anaya A, Rinaldi L, Cringoli G, Gomes L, Oliveira M, Paz-Silva A, Rebelo M, Madeira De Carvalho L. Diagnosis of Coccidiosis by Eimeria spp. in Free-Range Chickens Using Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster Techniques—Preliminary Results. Sci. Parasitol. 2021;22:13–18.
  28. Borges J, Lima V, da Silva E, Lima D, Marmontel M, Carvalho V, Faustino M, Cringolli G, Rinaldi L, Alves L. Use of the FLOTAC Technique as a New Coproparasitological Diagnostic Method in Aquatic Mammals and Comparison with Traditional Methods. Ann. Braz. Acad. Sci. 2022;94:e20201184.
    doi: 10.1590/0001-3765202220201184pubmed: 35239771google scholar: lookup
  29. Cringoli G, Rinaldi L, Maurelli M, Utzinger J. FLOTAC: New Multivalent Techniques for Qualitative and Quantitative Copromicroscopic Diagnosis of Parasites in Animals and Humans. Nat. Protoc. 2010;5:503–515.
    doi: 10.1038/nprot.2009.235pubmed: 20203667google scholar: lookup
  30. Cringoli G, Maurelli M, Levecke B, Bosco A, Vercruysse J, Utzinger J, Rinaldi L. The Mini-FLOTAC Technique for the Diagnosis of Helminth and Protozoan Infections in Humans and Animals. Nat. Protoc. 2017;12:1723–1732.
    doi: 10.1038/nprot.2017.067pubmed: 28771238google scholar: lookup
  31. Zajac A, Conboy G, Little S, Reichard M. Fecal Examination for the Diagnosis of Parasitism—Parasites of Domestic Animals—Horses. In: Zajac A., Conboy G., Little S., Reichard M., editors. Veterinary Clinical Parasitology. Wiley-Blackwell; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2021. pp. 126–139.
  32. Thienpont D, Rochette F, Vanparijs O. Diagnosing Helminthiasis Through Coprological Examination. Janssen Animal Health; Beerse, Belgium: 2003. Worm Eggs—Horse; pp. 69–89.
  33. Zajac A, Conboy G, Little S, Reichard M. Fecal Examination for the Diagnosis of Parasitism—Modified McMaster Test. In: Zajac A., Conboy G., Little S., Reichard M., editors. Veterinary Clinical Parasitology. Wiley-Blackwell; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2021. pp. 9–10.
  34. Lejeune M, Mann S, White H, Maguire D, Hazard J, Young R, Stone C, Antczak D, Bowman D. Evaluation of Fecal Egg Count Tests for Effective Control of Equine Intestinal Strongyles. Pathogens 2023;12:1283.
    doi: 10.3390/pathogens12111283pmc: PMC10674696pubmed: 38003748google scholar: lookup
  35. Noel M, Scare J, Bellaw J, Nielsen M. Accuracy and Precision of Mini-FLOTAC and McMaster Techniques for Determining Equine Strongyle Egg Counts. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;48:182–187.e1.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2016.09.006google scholar: lookup
  36. Bortoluzzi C, Paras K, Applegate T, Verocai G. Comparison between McMaster and Mini-FLOTAC Methods for the Enumeration of Eimeria maxima Oocysts in Poultry Excreta. Vet. Parasitol. 2018;254:21–25.
    doi: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2018.02.039pubmed: 29657006google scholar: lookup
  37. Barda B, Rinaldi L, Ianniello D, Zepherine H, Salvo F, Sadutshang T, Cringoli G, Clementi M, Albonico M. Mini-FLOTAC, an Innovative Direct Diagnostic Technique for Intestinal Parasitic Infections: Experience from the Field. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2013;7:e2344.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002344pmc: PMC3731229pubmed: 23936577google scholar: lookup
  38. Corning S. Equine Cyathostomins: A Review of Biology, Clinical Significance and Therapy. Parasit Vectors 2009;2((Suppl. S2)):S1.
    doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-2-S2-S1pmc: PMC2751837pubmed: 19778462google scholar: lookup
  39. Madeira de Carvalho L. Estrongilidose Dos Equídeos: Biologia, Patologia, Epidemiologia e Controlo. In: Reina D., Tovar J., editors. In Memoriam Prof. Ignacio Navarrete López-Cózar. Universidad de Extremadura, Facultad de Veterinaria; Cáceres, España: 2014. pp. 277–326.
  40. Madeira de Carvalho L. Ph.D. Thesis. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of University of Lisbon; Lisboa, Portugal: 2002. Epidemiologia e Controlo Da Estrongilidose Em Diferentes Sistemas de Produção Equina Em Portugal.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,030 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.