ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Field evaluation of two commercial feline immunodeficiency virus antibody detection point-of-care kits in domestic cats.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely diagnosis of feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) is essential for informed clinical decision-making, particularly when screening cats before admission into multi-cat environments or assessing blood donor candidates. Point-of-care (PoC) antibody detection kits play a central role in these settings, but their clinical utility relies on independent evaluations under field conditions. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of two commercially available PoC kits for which independent evaluation data are lacking.
methodsA total of 116 archived serum samples from a previous FIV survey in Egypt were included, comprising 62 FIV-infected and 54 FIV-non-infected cats. Infection status had been determined previously using a diagnostic panel including two PoC kits with demonstrated high accuracy and PCR. Sequencing of available positive PCR samples revealed the sole presence of a novel subtype “X-EGY.” All samples were tested in parallel using the two kits under evaluation and independently interpreted by three observers blinded to infection status. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were estimated using the calculated kit sensitivity and specificity, and the local FIV prevalence. Additionally, inter-kit agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa statistic.
resultsBoth kits demonstrated 100% diagnostic specificity in the sample set used. However, substantial differences were observed in diagnostic sensitivity (98.39% versus 61.29%) and test line intensity among concordant positive results. In the context of high local FIV prevalence previously reported in Egypt (31.6%), both kits showed 100% PPV, whereas NPV differed markedly (99.26% versus 84.83%), reflecting differences in diagnostic sensitivity. The overall agreement between the kits was moderate (kappa = 0.58).
conclusionThis study demonstrates marked disparities in the diagnostic performance of two commercially available FIV PoC kits under identical local conditions. High-prevalence settings like Egypt require PoC kits with high sensitivity to ensure a reliable NPV and prevent missed infections. Additionally, the circulation of a divergent subtype among Egyptian cats can also impair detection, further necessitating the use of high-sensitivity kits. Together, these factors underscore the urgent need for evaluation of PoC kits under local epidemiological and virological conditions to inform evidence-based kit selection in practice.
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.