Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29554955›Full record

ReviewParasites & vectors2018

Prime detection of Dirofilaria immitis: understanding the influence of blocked antigen on heartworm test performance.

Susan Little, Meriam Saleh, Megan Wohltjen, Yoko Nagamori

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Parasites & vectors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Evaluation of the trūRapidParasites & vectors · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. New Insights into the Prevalence ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Prevalence and risk factors associated withVeterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2025
    Article
  13. Detection ofTransboundary and emerging diseases · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. DetectingPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  16. Dirofilariasis of the Nasal Dorsum: A Case Report.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024
    Article
  17. Heat Treatment Augments Antigen Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. Prevalence ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Susan LittleDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA. susan.little@okstate.edu.
Meriam SalehDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Megan WohltjenDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Yoko NagamoriDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detection of circulating antigen of Dirofilaria immitis has been a mainstay of identifying heartworm infection in clinical practice for the past three decades. Several validated commercial antigen tests have very good sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values, especially when used in patients for which heartworm infection is likely. In some dogs and cats infected with heartworm, antigen may not be available for detection although present in the patient sample; heat pretreatment of these samples reveals the antigen, changing the false negative to positive. This phenomenon was documented in the literature in the 1980s but subsequently overlooked by the heartworm research community for many years. In this review, we provide a summary of the current understanding of the role of heat reversal in diagnosing heartworm infection. This additional diagnostic step is most important for patients in which heartworm infection is likely, such as dogs or cats in an endemic area with an inconsistent history of heartworm preventive use, or dogs with a prior diagnosis of heartworm infection that were recently treated. To illustrate the concept, we share a summary of results from canine samples tested at the state veterinary diagnostic laboratory in Oklahoma, USA in 2017 by modified Knott test and by commercial antigen test before and after heat treatment of samples; in this sample set, heat treatment changed all D. immitis microfilaria-positive but antigen-negative samples to antigen-positive. Pet dogs with a history of consistent preventive use are unlikely to become positive with heat pretreatment; for that reason, routine pretreatment of all samples tested in a veterinary practice is not recommended. We also review known causes of false negative and false positive results on heartworm antigen tests that, although uncommon, can complicate accurate diagnosis in individual patients. Together, this review provides a primer to aid understanding of strategies that can enhance accurate diagnosis of heartworm infection in veterinary practice and clinical research.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntigens, HelminthCatsDirofilaria immitisDirofilariasisDog DiseasesDogsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsHot TemperatureReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, HelminthReagent Kits, DiagnosticAntigenDiagnosisDirofilaria immitisFalse negativeFalse positiveHeartwormHeat treatment

Identifiers

PMID29554955
PMCPMC5859648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.