ArticleJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc2018
Amplification of Mycoplasma haemofelis DNA by a PCR for point-of-care use.
Article in Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of sampling site on the diagnosis of canine parvovirus infection in dogs using polymerase chain reaction.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared a qualitative in-clinic (IC)-PCR for the detection of Mycoplasma haemofelis DNA with the results of a commercial qualitative laboratory-based, conventional (c)PCR. In order to determine the specificity of both tests, Bartonella spp. samples were included. Forty-three previously tested blood samples with known PCR results for hemoplasmas and Bartonella spp. were selected. The samples were split between 2 laboratories. At the first laboratory, DNA was purified and run on 2 cPCR assays for the detection of hemoplasmas and Bartonella spp. At the second laboratory, DNA was purified using 2 purification protocols and both run in the IC-PCR assay. The cPCR results confirmed that 18 samples were positive for M. haemofelis, 5 for ' Candidatus M. haemominutum', 8 for Bartonella henselae, 2 for Bartonella clarridgeiae, and 10 were negative for both genera. No mixed infections were observed. The IC-PCR assay for the detection of M. haemofelis had a sensitivity of 94.4% and specificity of 96%, when using the same DNA purification method as the first laboratory. Using the second purification method, the sensitivity of the IC-PCR assay was 77.8% and specificity was 96%. Bartonella species were not detected by the IC-PCR M. haemofelis assay. The IC-PCR assay decreased the amount of time to final result compared to a cPCR assay.
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.