ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
A Comparison of Diagnostic Methods for Feline Leukemia Virus and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus: Immunochromatographic Assay and RNases Hybridization-Assisted Amplification Test Kit Compared to Reverse Transcription Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular Detection of Feline HemotropicVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- High-Accuracy Serodiagnosis of African Swine Fever Using P72 and P30-Based Lateral Flow Assays: A Validation Study with Field Samples in Thailand.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- RNase Hybridization-Assisted Amplification (RHAM) Technology: A High-Sensitivity, Field-Deployable Alternative to Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Rapid Detection of African Swine Fever Virus.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) are globally prevalent retroviral pathogens that pose significant health risks to domestic cats. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of two point-of-care-the immunochromatographic assay (ICA) and the RNase hybridization-assisted amplification (RHAM) test kit-against reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), the current gold standard for FeLV and FIV detection. For FeLV detection, ICA demonstrated a sensitivity of 86.89%, specificity of 96.55%, accuracy of 90.00%, and precision of 98.15%, while for FIV detection, the assay showed a sensitivity of 75.86%, specificity of 88.52%, accuracy of 84.44%, and precision of 75.86%. In contrast, the RHAM test exhibited superior performance, with FeLV detection sensitivity of 93.44%, specificity of 98.28%, accuracy of 94.44%, and precision of 98.28%. For FIV detection, RHAM demonstrated a sensitivity of 75.86%, specificity of 100%, accuracy of 92.22%, and precision of 100%. Additionally, the RHAM assay significantly reduced detection time compared to RT-qPCR, enabling expedited clinical decision-making, alleviating laboratory workload, and lowering diagnostic costs. These benefits are particularly relevant in veterinary settings with limited access to PCR-based diagnostics, where the RHAM assay represents a rapid, reliable, and resource-efficient alternative for FeLV and FIV detection.
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.