Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37587483›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2023

Comparative study of a broad qPCR panel and centrifugal flotation for detection of gastrointestinal parasites in fecal samples from dogs and cats in the United States.

Christian M Leutenegger, Cecilia E Lozoya, Jeffrey Tereski, Jan Andrews, Kelly D Mitchell, Cathy Meeks, Jennifer L Willcox, Gregory Freeman, Holly L Richmond, Christian Savard and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Prevalence and distribution ofOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Parasitology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. First Characterization and Zoonotic Potential Evaluation ofTransboundary and emerging diseases · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian M LeuteneggerAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA. christian.leutenegger@antechmail.com.
Cecilia E LozoyaAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA.
Jeffrey TereskiAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA.
Jan AndrewsAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA.
Kelly D MitchellAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA.
Cathy MeeksAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA.
Jennifer L WillcoxAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA.
Gregory FreemanAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA.
Holly L RichmondAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA.
Christian SavardBioVet Inc, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada.
Michelle D EvasonAntech Diagnostics, Inc, Fountain Valley, CA, USA.
Optech (Canada) · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor decades, zinc sulfate centrifugal fecal flotation microscopy (ZCF) has been the mainstay technique for gastrointestinal (GI) parasite screening at veterinary clinics and laboratories. Elsewhere, PCR has replaced microscopy because of generally increased sensitivity and detection capabilities; however, until recently it has been unavailable commercially. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to compare the performance of real-time PCR (qPCR) and ZCF for fecal parasite screening. Secondary aims included further characterization of markers for hookworm treatment resistance and Giardia spp. assemblages with zoonotic potential and qPCR optimization.

methodsA convenience sampling of 931 canine/feline fecal samples submitted to a veterinary reference laboratory for routine ZCF from the Northeast US (11/2022) was subsequently evaluated by a broad qPCR panel following retention release. Detection frequency and agreement (kappa statistics) were evaluated between ZCF and qPCR for seven GI parasites [hookworm/(Ancylostoma spp.), roundworm/(Toxocara spp.), whipworm/(Trichuris spp.), Giardia duodenalis, Cystoisospora spp., Toxoplasma gondii, and Tritrichomonas blagburni] and detections per sample. Total detection frequencies were compared using a paired t-test; positive sample and co-infection frequencies were compared using Pearson's chi-squared test (p ≤ 0.05 significant) and qPCR frequency for hookworm benzimidazole (BZ) resistance (F167Y) and zoonotic Giardia spp. assemblage markers calculated. Confirmatory testing, characterization, and qPCR optimization were carried out with Sanger sequencing.

resultsqPCR detected a significantly higher overall parasite frequency (n = 679) compared to ZCF (n = 437) [p =  < 0.0001, t = 14.38, degrees-of-freedom (df) = 930] and 2.6 × the co-infections [qPCR (n = 172) vs. ZCF (n = 66)], which was also significant (p =  < 0.0001, X

conclusionsThese results demonstrate the statistically significant detection frequency advantage offered by qPCR compared to routine ZCF for both single and co-infections. While overall agreement was excellent, this rapid, commercially available qPCR panel offers benefits beyond ZCF with detection of markers for Giardia assemblages with zoonotic potential and hookworm (A. caninum) BZ resistance.

Indexed as

Cat DiseasesCoinfectionDog DiseasesGastropodaGiardiasisIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticParasitesAncylostomaAnimalsCatsDogsGiardiaReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionUnited StatesAncylostomaGastrointestinalGiardiaParasitesPCRResistanceZoonotic

Identifiers

PMID37587483
PMCPMC10433665
OpenAlexW4385877793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.