ArticleVeterinary world2025
A comparison of diagnostic methods for canine Ehrlichiosis: Microscopy and RNases hybridization-assisted amplification technology compared with the quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Article in Veterinary world, 2025. 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.
- 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
- 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.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Canine vector-borne pathogens, particularly blood parasites, pose significant health threats to domestic dogs, ranging from subclinical infections to severe systemic diseases. In Thailand, microscopic examination remains the standard diagnostic method, despite its limitations. This study aimed to (i) determine the prevalence of major canine vector-borne pathogens in Bangkok, Thailand during the 2024 rainy season and (ii) evaluate the diagnostic performance of microscopy and a novel RNase hybridization-assisted amplification (RHAM) test kit in detecting canine Ehrlichiosis, compared to the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) gold standard. Materials and Methods: A total of 134 whole blood samples were collected from clinically suspected dogs. Microscopy was performed on Giemsa-stained blood smears, and the RHAM test kit was employed for nucleic acid detection. qPCR served as the reference method. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and precision of each diagnostic method were calculated relative to qPCR results. Results: Microscopic examination revealed the following infection prevalences: Conclusion: This study highlights the continued high prevalence of Ehrlichiosis among dogs in Bangkok during the rainy season. Although microscopy remains practical, its diagnostic limitations are significant. The RHAM test kit demonstrated excellent sensitivity and specificity, offering a rapid and accurate alternative for Ehrlichiosis detection, particularly suitable for resource-limited settings lacking qPCR capabilities. Adoption of the RHAM assay could improve early diagnosis and management of canine Ehrlichiosis at grassroots veterinary facilities.
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.