ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2019
Evaluation of the clinical performance of 2 point-of-care cryptococcal antigen tests in dogs and cats.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- What Do We Know AboutJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Fungus in the Fur: An Overview of Fungal Infections in Cats, Dogs, and Exotic Small Mammals.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2025Review
- Invasive Fungal Infections and Oomycoses in Cats: 1. Diagnostic approach.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2024Review
- Clinical performance of the IMMY cryptococcal antigen lateral flow assay in dogs and cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2022Article
- Point-of-care testing in companion and food animal disease diagnostics.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Review
- First case of feline cryptococcosis in Hong Kong, caused byMedical mycology case reports · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the clinical performance of 2 point-of-care cryptococcal antigen tests in dogs and cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2019Article
- Nasopharyngeal cryptococcosis in a cat: interlaboratory variation in cryptococcal antigen assay test results.JFMS open reportsArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care (POC) Cryptococcus antigen assays may provide veterinarians with a more rapid, patient-side diagnosis when compared with traditional laboratory-based latex agglutination tests.
objectiveTo determine the sensitivity and specificity of 2 POC lateral flow cryptococcal serum antigen tests, CrAg LFA (Immy, Norman, OK) and the CryptoPS (Biosynex, Strasbourg, France) for diagnosis of cryptococcosis in dogs and cats, using the cryptococcal antigen latex agglutination system (CALAS) as the reference standard. ANIMALS: 102 serum samples from 51 dogs and 40 cats.
methodsSpecimens were classified as CALAS-positive (n = 25) or CALAS-negative (n = 77). The sensitivity and specificity of each POC assay was calculated by comparing the results to the serologic reference standard results.
resultsThe CrAg LFA assay correctly classified 23/25 CALAS-positive specimens and 69/74 CALAS-negative specimens resulting in a sensitivity of 92.0% (confidence interval [CI], 75.0%-98.6%) and specificity of 93.2% (CI, 85.1%-97.1%). The CryptoPS assay correctly classified 8/10 tested CALAS-positive specimens and 56/59 tested CALAS-negative specimens resulting in a sensitivity of 80.0% (CI, 49.0%-96.5%) and specificity of 94.9% (CI, 86.1%-98.6%). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The POC assays appear to be a sensitive and specific alternative to the traditional CALAS assay with more rapid turnaround times, which may result in earlier diagnosis and treatment.
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.