ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2013
Preliminary evaluation of a quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay for diagnosis of feline immunodeficiency virus infection.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2020 AAFP Feline Retrovirus Testing and Management Guidelines.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2020Guideline
- Molecular Detection and Genetic Characterization of Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV) in Seropositive Cats in Northern Italy.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Ocular manifestations of feline viral diseases.Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997) · 2014Review
- Update on Canine and Feline Blood Donor Screening for Blood-Borne Pathogens.Journal of veterinary internal medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has high sensitivity and specificity for detection of feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) antibodies, but does not distinguish between infection and vaccination. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays may distinguish infected from vaccinated cats. Performance of a commercial qPCR assay was assessed with blood samples from 29 FIV-infected non-vaccinated, 26 FIV-uninfected vaccinated and 35 FIV-uninfected non-vaccinated cats. FIV infection status of cats was assigned based on a combination of vaccination and medical history, prevention of contact with potentially infected cats and two FIV antibody ELISA results. Test sensitivity and specificity were determined against this gold standard. The qPCR test yielded positive results in samples from 23/29 FIV-infected non-vaccinated, 2/26 FIV-uninfected vaccinated and 0/35 FIV-uninfected non-vaccinated cats. It was concluded that the qPCR test was moderately sensitive and highly specific for the diagnosis of FIV infection, and that it may be suitable for ruling out FIV infection in cats with a positive antibody ELISA result and unknown vaccination history.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.