ArticleThe Journal of small animal practice2016
Diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care kits for the diagnosis of Giardia species infection in dogs.
Article in The Journal of small animal practice, 2016. 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.
- Enhancing diagnostic accuracy: Direct immunofluorescence assay as the gold standard for detecting Giardia duodenalis and Cryptosporidium spp. in canine and feline fecal samples.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Rapid on-site diagnosis of canine giardiosis: time versus performance.Parasites & vectors · 2020Article
- Comparative cost-effectiveness of immunoassays and FLOTAC for diagnosing Giardia spp. infection in dogs.Parasites & vectors · 2019Article
- Comparative performance of reference laboratory tests and in-clinic tests for Giardia in canine feces.Parasites & vectors · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to compare results obtained by ZnSO4 Flotation and SNAP (®) Giardia to those generated by the new point-of-care tests Single and Triple Rapid.
methodsProspective study evaluating 51 canine faecal samples submitted at a reference laboratory for the presence of Giardia spp. Kappa statistics, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated by comparing the new tests to the combined results of ZnSO4 and SNAP tests.
resultsThere was fair (Single Rapid, j=0·434) to good (Triple Rapid, j =0·797) agreement with the reference tests. At this study's prevalence (59 to 61%), specificities and PPV were high (1·00) with both Rapid tests, but sensitivities and NPV were lower for the Single than for the Triple (0·48 vs 0·83 and 0·55 vs 0·80) tests. At lower prevalence rates, both tests exhibited a high PPV (1·00), but the NPV were higher with the Triple (0·96 to 0·99) than the Single (0·88 to 0·96) Rapid test. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both tests exhibited excellent PPV values at all prevalence rates but an excellent NPV only at low prevalence. As the prevalence is likely to be low (<15%) in clinical settings, we propose that these tests may be helpful in the in-house diagnosis of Giardia spp infection. However, they exhibit lower sensitivity than the combined sensitivity of ZnSO4 and SNAP tests, particularly in high prevalence settings.
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.