ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of diagnostic methods and genetic analysis for canine vector-borne diseases in Thailand.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- High burden and spatial clustering of canine hemoparasitic infections in southern Thailand: A molecular survey of free-roaming dogs.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- The Comparative Study for Detection of Canine Vector-Borne Pathogens Between Companion and Stray Dogs in Bangkok and Vicinities, Thailand.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Uncovering a neglected canine filarioid in Asia: First evidence ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Canine vector-borne diseases (CVBDs), transmitted by arthropods, are widespread globally and pose significant health risks to dogs. Diagnosing CVBDs, particularly co-infections, is challenging for laboratory technicians. This study in Thailand evaluated 270 canine blood samples for vector-borne pathogens using microscopy, conventional PCR (cPCR), and the Vcheck M Canine Vector 8 Panel (Vcheck). Microscopy was used for initial screening, while cPCR and Vcheck tested for exposure to eight CVBDs-causing genera (Ehrlichia, Hepatozoon, Mycoplasma, Anaplasma, Rickettsia, Babesia, Leishmania, and Bartonella). Among 220 dogs, infection rates were high in suspected cases: 68.9% by microscopy, 73.7% by cPCR, and 76.3% by Vcheck. Notably, 20.0% of infected dogs had co-infections, primarily with E. canis and B. vogeli. The remaining 50 dogs were negative by microscopic examination. Agreement between methods ranged from moderate to almost perfect. Vcheck demonstrates significant potential for CVBDs epidemiological surveillance, offering a valuable tool for researchers and clinicians in Thailand and beyond.
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.