ArticleParasites & vectors2018
Comparative performance of reference laboratory tests and in-clinic tests for Giardia in canine feces.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment of giardiasis in dogs: field clinical study to confirm the efficacy, safety, and acceptance of a metronidazole-based flavored oral suspension.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- 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
- Review
- Article
- Lack of efficacy of fenbendazole against Giardia duodenalis in a naturally infected population of dogs in France.Parasite (Paris, France) · 2022Article
- Automated Diagnostics: Advances in the Diagnosis of Intestinal Parasitic Infections in Humans and Animals.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Detection of gastrointestinal parasitism at recreational canine sites in the USA: the DOGPARCS study.Parasites & vectors · 2020Article
- Automated Diagnosis of Canine Gastrointestinal Parasites Using Image Analysis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Comparison of multiplexed-tandem real-time PCR panel with reference real-time PCR molecular diagnostic assays for detection of Giardia intestinalis and Tritrichomonas foetus in cats.Veterinary parasitology · 2019Article
- Giardia lamblia infection: review of current diagnostic strategies.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe examined the performance of four in-clinic Giardia diagnostic tests by comparing results to three laboratory methods for detection of Giardia. A set of 177 fecal samples originally submitted to a commercial laboratory by veterinarians for routine ova and parasite (O&P) testing was used. Specimens were examined by direct immunofluorescence assay (DFA) for presence of Giardia cysts which served as the gold standard. Fecal samples were tested using a Giardia-specific cyst wall antigen microtiter plate format enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and each of the in-clinic assays adhering to the package insert for each kit.
resultsEvaluated were four in-clinic antigen test kits: VetScan® Canine Giardia Rapid Test (Abaxis), Anigen® Rapid CPV-CCV-Giardia Antigen Test (BioNote), SNAP® Giardia Test (IDEXX) and Witness® Giardia Test (Zoetis). In the comparison of the in-clinic tests to the DFA standard test sensitivity ranged between 70.0-87.1%, and specificity ranged between 71.1-93.4%.
conclusionOf the tests evaluated here, the SNAP test had the highest sensitivity and specificity. The SNAP test had the highest percent positive and percent negative agreement when compared to the microtiter plate format ELISA and the O&P 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.