Schistosoma mansoni egg counts by faecal examination vary considerably
and are not very sensitive, so prevalences are underestimated. The di
stribution of egg counts can adequately be described by a stochastic m
odel which distinguishes variation in counts between persons and varia
tion in repeated counts within a person. Based on this model a pocket
chart has been developed which predicts the proportion of individuals
harbouring at least 1 S. mansoni worm pair-the 'true prevalence' -from
a simple single survey prevalence and geometric mean egg count (using
common duplicate 25 mg Kato-Katz smears). The current paper describes
the validation of this chart by comparing predicted true prevalences
with prevalences observed after 5-7 repeated Kato-Katz faecal examinat
ions (Burundi), by examination of a large quantity of stool using the
Visser filter (Brazil) or a selective sedimentation-filtration method
(Surinam). Because 5-7 repeated examinations do not suffice to measure
all infections, predictions have been made of the cumulative proporti
on positives over 5-7 surveys-the 'approximate true prevalence' -as we
ll. After dividing the data into age groups, 12 different subsets were
considered for validation. In all 12 cases, predicted true prevalence
s (or approximate true prevalences for the Burundi data) agree well wi
th those observed. The overall agreement depends only slightly on the
assumed relationship between worm numbers and mean egg counts, with a
good fit for a productivity between 0.8 and 4.4 eggs per gramme faeces
(EPG) per worm pair (WP). This interval includes the most plausible v
alue from the literature, i.e. 1.0 EPG/WP, which has been applied in t
he initial pocket chart. These findings support the validity of the ch
art to predict true prevalences for a wide range of productivity assum
ptions, and reinforces the applicability of its underlying stochastic
model to describe egg count variation. However, as predictions appear
to vary importantly when using only part of the data, it is also concl
uded that the pocket chart never compensates for limited validity of i
nitial single survey prevalences and geometric means in consequence of
small sample sizes.