ArticleParasites & vectors2025
Comparing the performance of OvaCyte and traditional techniques in detecting canine gastrointestinal parasites.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2025. 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.
- Evaluation of OvaCyte for the detection of gastrointestinal parasites in ovine and bovine animals: comparison with traditional flotation techniques.Parasite (Paris, France) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompanion animals are infected with a range of helminth and protozoan parasites which can have a significant effect on health and welfare. While several diagnostic techniques are available to detect parasitic infection, they all vary in sensitivity and specificity. This study aims to estimate the diagnostic performance of the OvaCyte™ Pet Analyser by comparing it with established benchmarks commonly used in reference laboratories.
methodsA total of 141 canine faecal samples, containing at least one species of parasite after screening using double centrifugation, were tested using four index tests: centrifugal flotation (faeces weighing either 1 g or 2 g), passive flotation, and the OvaCyte™ technique. The true status of each sample was determined on the basis of the initial screening test and the aggregated result of the four index tests. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each of the four index tests.
resultsThe OvaCyte™ Pet Analyser displayed high sensitivity ranging from 90% to 100% in detecting various parasite species in canines. Its sensitivity for roundworm and hookworm detection differed significantly from centrifugal flotation using 1 g and passive flotation techniques (P < 0.05). The OvaCyte™ demonstrated higher sensitivity in detecting Cystoisospora spp. (90%) and Capillaria spp. (100%) compared to all flotation methods (P < 0.001), though it showed slightly lower specificity than the other techniques.
conclusionsThese results highlight the variability in sensitivity across different diagnostic methods, underscoring the importance of selecting the most reliable technique for accurate parasite detection in veterinary practice. However, the OvaCyte™ Pet Analyser exhibits an elevated level of sensitivity compared to other techniques.
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.