ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2022
Clinical performance of the IMMY cryptococcal antigen lateral flow assay in dogs and cats.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- What Do We Know AboutJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of cryptococcal antigen testing using a novel chemiluminescence assay in two medical centers of China.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Clinical performance of the IMMY cryptococcal antigen lateral flow assay in dogs and cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2022Article
- Neosporosis in 21 adult dogs, 2010-2023.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCryptococcal lateral flow antigen assays (CLFAs) have been assessed in comparison to the latex cryptococcal antigen agglutination test but their clinical performance is unknown.
objectiveDetermine clinical performance of IMMY CLFA (Immuno-Mycologics Inc, Oklahoma) using patients with and without cryptococcosis as the reference standard. ANIMALS: One-hundred ninety-seven serum samples from client-owned dogs and cats.
methodsReview of medical records of a referral population of dogs and cats that had CLFA performed between 2012 and 2020. Animals were classified as cryptococcosis positive (Cr+) or negative (Cr-) based on clinical information. Clinical diagnosis was used to calculate positive and negative percent agreement of the CLFA.
resultsTwelve specimens (4 canine, 8 feline) were obtained from Cr+ animals and had positive CLFA results. One-hundred eighty-five specimens (139 canine, 46 feline) were collected from Cr- animals. Negative CLFA results were recorded in 129 canine and 44 feline Cr- samples. Positive CLFA results were noted for 10 canine and 2 feline Cr- samples. Positive percent agreement of CLFA was 100% (confidence interval [CI], 39.8%-100% dogs; 63.1%-100% cats). Negative percent agreements were 92.8% (CI, 87.2%-96.5%) for dogs and 95.7% (CI, 85.2%-99.5%) for cats. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: A negative IMMY CLFA result enables reliable exclusion of cryptococcal infection in dogs and cats. By contrast, a positive result must be interpreted cautiously and further testing should be performed to verify a diagnosis of cryptococcosis.
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.