ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Evaluation of a rapid immunoassay for bacteriuria in dogs.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a rapid immunoassay for bacteriuria in dogs.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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ability to detect bacteriuria in dogs with a point-of-care test might improve medical care and antimicrobial stewardship. HYPOTHESIS AND
objectiveA rapid immunoassay (RIA; RapidBac) will provide acceptable sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of bacteriuria. ANIMALS: Forty-four client-owned dogs with a clinical indication for urinalysis and aerobic bacterial urine culture.
methodsProspective study. Urine, collected by cystocentesis, was submitted for urinalysis and culture at a diagnostic laboratory. Owners completed an enrollment questionnaire regarding their dogs' clinical signs. The RIA was performed according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Results were compared to culture.
resultsForty-four urine specimens were evaluated from 44 dogs. The sensitivity and specificity of the RIA test to detect bacteriuria compared to urine culture were 81.8% (95% CI, 65.7%-97.9%) and 95.5% (95% CI, 86.8%-99.9%), respectively. For cultures yielding ≥10 CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The RIA was easy to perform and had good sensitivity and excellent specificity in this group of dogs. The RIA might be a useful screening test for decision-making regarding antimicrobial therapy in dogs with a clinical indication for urine culture. Consideration could be given to amending the International Society for Companion Animal Infectious Disease definition of bacterial cystitis as the presence of signs of lower urinary tract disease together with positive culture or a positive RIA.
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.