ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2019
Field study assessing the performance of a patient-side blood test to determine neuter status in female cats based on detection of luteinising hormone.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2019. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term effect of neutering on plasma luteinising hormone concentration in cats.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the performance of a patient-side blood test in determining neuter status in female cats.
methodsResidual blood samples from female cats of unknown neuter status that were admitted to four cat adoption centres in the UK were tested for luteinising hormone (LH) using the Witness LH test (Zoetis). A positive LH test result indicated that the cat was neutered. Cats were assessed for evidence of a surgical scar suggestive of prior neutering; if none was found, an exploratory laparotomy was performed to confirm neuter status. The LH test performance was assessed (sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value).
resultsTwo hundred and thirty-six cats had both LH test and exploratory laparotomy data. The specificity of the test in detecting neutered cats was 100% (95% confidence interval 96.2-99.9) and the sensitivity was 69% (95% confidence interval 59.3-76.8). The prevalence of neutered cats in this sample was 49%. The positive and negative predictive values were 1 and 0.77, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Witness LH test correctly detected all unneutered cats and thus there were no false-positive results that incorrectly indicated a cat was neutered. This study therefore suggests that positive LH test results avoid the need to perform surgery to confirm neuter status. This has significant welfare benefits for cats as it provides a lower risk, faster and less traumatic alternative to surgery and, in the shelter setting, it will have a positive impact on the cost, speed of assessment and time to rehoming of cats.
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.