ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2022
Effect of sampling site on the diagnosis of canine parvovirus infection in dogs using polymerase chain reaction.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disruption of oxidant-antioxidant balance and its correlation with intestinal injury and clinical severity in dogs with canine parvoviral gastroenteritis.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
- Red Foxes (Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Integrative Analysis of Dog Serum-Derived CircRNA Expression and Disease Severity, Inflammatory and Cardiac Damage Biomarkers Related to Canine Parvoviral Enteritis.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
- Persistence of DNA from canine parvovirus modified-live virus in canine tissues.Veterinary research communications · 2023Article
- 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate diagnosis is imperative in dogs with clinical signs of parvovirus infection (CPV-2).
objectivesTo assess quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) for the diagnosis of CPV-2 infection, and determine the optimal sampling site. Secondarily, to compare qRT-PCR with a point-of-care PCR kit (PCRun), and to assess sensitivity of serology for CPV diagnosis. ANIMALS: Sixty dogs with naturally acquired parvovirus infection, 44 unvaccinated puppies, of which 16 were followed after first and second vaccination, 15 adult dogs, of which 10 were followed also after a booster vaccine, and 9 dogs with distemper virus infection.
methodsProspective study. Samples from the rectum, blood, and pharynx were obtained for PCR.
resultsAll dogs with a clinical diagnosis of parvovirus infection were positive by qRT-PCR in at least 1 sampling site (ie, rectum, blood, pharynx), and 50 (83%) of 60 were positive in all sites. qRT-PCR was negative in 67 (99%) of 68 healthy puppies (before-vaccination), puppies with distemper, and healthy adult dogs. Ten days after initial vaccination of puppies, 62% (fecal), 31% (blood), and 12% (pharyngeal) of samples were positive for CPV-2 on qRT-PCR. The proportion of positive pharyngeal samples decreased 20 days after vaccination and all sites were negative 12-28 days after second vaccination. Vaccinated adults were negative before and after booster vaccination. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Molecular detection of CPV is sensitive, but specificity is hampered temporarily during the vaccination period. Blood, feces, and pharynx are suitable sampling sites. Fecal samples had the lowest sensitivity in sick dogs and highest positivity in puppies after vaccination.
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.