ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2026
Clinical performance of 3 commercially available point-of-care antibody tests for Brucella canis in dogs.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBrucellosis in dogs, caused by Brucella canis, is a zoonotic disease often underdiagnosed because of diagnostic challenges and subclinical infection. Bacterial culture, the reference standard, is impractical and has limited sensitivity because of intermittent or low-grade bacteremia. Accurate point-of-care (POC) testing could facilitate timely management and infection control. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesEvaluate the diagnostic performance of 3 POC lateral flow assays for detection of B. canis antibodies in dogs, using the Canine Brucella Multiplex (CBM) assay as the reference serologic assay. ANIMALS: Fifty serum samples from 50 client-owned dogs submitted for B. canis serology.
methodsSamples were classified as CBM-positive (n = 10; culture-positive dogs) or CBM-negative (n = 40; healthy dogs undergoing export testing). Assays were run in duplicate and independently interpreted by 2 observers. Positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and inter-reader agreement were calculated relative to CBM.
resultsThe Anigen Rapid C.Brucella Ab assay demonstrated 90.0% PPA (95% CI, 55.5-99.8) and 100% NPA (95% CI, 91.1-100). The FASTest® BRUCELLA canis assay demonstrated 100% PPA (95% CI, 69.1-100) and 92.5% NPA (95% CI, 79.6-98.4). The Canine Brucella LPS Antibody Rapid Test demonstrated 0% PPA (95% CI, 0-30.9) and 97.5% NPA (95% CI, 86.8-99.9). Inter-reader agreement was almost perfect for all assays (κ = 0.81-1.00). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The Anigen Rapid C.Brucella Ab and FASTest® BRUCELLA canis assays showed good agreement with the CBM assay and may be useful rule out tests in dogs with clinical signs compatible with brucellosis. In low prevalence settings, positive results require confirmatory testing, and false negatives remain possible.
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.