ArticleLaboratory animal research2015
Comparison of three diagnostic assays for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in laboratory dogs.
Article in Laboratory animal research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Optical detection using CRISPR-Cas12a of Helicobacter pylori for veterinary applications.Mikrochimica acta · 2023Article
- An exploratory study on the presence of Helicobacter heilmannii and Helicobacter billis in the feces of companion dogs.Veterinary medicine and science · 2022Article
- Frequency of endoscopic findings of equine squamous gastric disease (ESGD) in rural horses and its association withVeterinarni medicina · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of Helicobacter species may confound experimental data because of their association with disease progressing in various kinds of laboratory animals. Screening of Helicobacter species is particularly desirable, because they are prevalent in commercial and research animal facilities. The aim of the present study was to compare three diagnostic methods [e.g. Helicobacter stool antigen kit (HpSA), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and rapid urease test (RUT)] for the identification of Helicobacter spp. in stools or gastric biopsy specimens collected from eight dogs suffering from gastritis. The gastroscopic biopsy specimens were tested using RUT and PCR, while stool specimens were evaluated using both HpSA and PCR. DNAs from the gastric biopsies and stool specimens were analyzed by both a consensus PCR that amplified the RNA polymerase beta-subunit-coding gene (rpoB) of Helicobacter spp. and a species-specific PCR to amplify the urease B gene of Helicobacter heilmannii, Helicobacter pylori, and Helicobacter felis. Helicobacter spp. were detected in 62.5% of the dogs, while H. heilmannii and H. felis were identified in 37.5 and 25% of the dogs, respectively. The HpSA did not efficiently detect Helicobacter spp. in the stool samples compared to the RUT and PCR assays, both of which successfully detected Helicobacter spp. in the two sample types. Finally, we recommend that consensus PCR with stool specimens could be used before the species-specific PCR for identifying Helicobacter species in laboratory dogs.
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.