ArticleVirusdisease2022
Comparison of lateral flow assay and polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of canine distemper.
Article in Virusdisease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In present study, 50 nasal and conjunctival pooled swab samples from 48 dogs, one each from leopard and cat were collected, which were suspected for canine distemper from Anand and Ahmedabad districts during period of January-21 to June-21. Out of the 50 samples, 18% were positive for CD by Lateral flow assay (LFA). Using LFA, one each sample from leopard and cat samples were found negative for CD by LFA. Out of the total 50 (48 dogs, one each from leopard and cat) samples, 14 and 4% were positive by N-gene and H-gene based RT-PCR respectively. Comparative analysis of N and H genes, both the samples positive by H-gene based RT-PCR were also positive by N-gene based RT-PCR, which detected 5 more samples positive than H-gene based RT-PCR. Comparative analysis of N-gene based RT-PCR and LFA, relative sensitivity and specificity were 55.55% and 95.12% respectively. Comparative analysis of H-gene based RT-PCR and LFA relative sensitivity and specificity were 22.22 and 100% respectively.
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.