ArticleVeterinary world2015
Utility of a rapid immunochromatographic strip test in detecting canine parvovirus infection compared with polymerase chain reaction.
Article in Veterinary world, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitivity of lateral flow technique for diagnosis of canine parvovirus.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of an immunochromatographic test for the detection of glutamate dehydrogenase for the diagnosis of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection in dogs.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2021Article
- Rapid and sensitive detection ofAnnals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Simultaneous detection and differentiation of canine parvovirus and feline parvovirus by high resolution melting analysis.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
- Polymerase chain reaction combined with fluorescent lateral flow immunoassay based on magnetic purification for rapid detection of canine parvovirus 2.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe present study was undertaken to detect the presence of canine parvovirus (CPV) in fecal samples of diarrheic dogs by conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and immunochromatographic (IC) strip test and to compare the diagnostic potential of these tests. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 50 fecal samples collected from diarrheic dogs suspected for CPV infection were subjected to PCR using CPV-555 primer amplifying the gene coding for the VP1 protein. These samples were also tested by IC strip test using a commercial rapid Ag test kit. The results were statistically analyzed using McNemar test.
resultsA total of 22 samples (44%) were detected as positive by PCR, which yielded a specific amplicon of 583 bp. In IC strip test, 18 (36%) samples were found to be positive. The sensitivity of the test as compared to PCR was found to be 72.22% and specificity was 92.86%. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of IC strip test was found to be 88.89% and 81.25%, respectively. Statistical analysis of the results of PCR and IC assay using McNemar test revealed no significant difference (p>0.05).
conclusionThe IC strip test could be employed as a rapid field level diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of canine parvoviral diarrhea.
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.