ArticleParasites & vectors2026
Fluorescence videography for the rapid and automated in-clinic detection of microfilariae.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 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
backgroundHeartworm infection is a serious cause of both morbidity and mortality in canids. Current guidelines from professional bodies recommend annual testing using both molecular (ELISA/PCR/Lateral Flow) and microscopic (detection of microfilariae in blood) testing. The inconvenience of the latter, however, presents a barrier to some clinicians towards adherence to these guidelines. We have recently developed a fully automated, rapid and hands-free test that uses videography coupled to computer vision analysis to detect and enumerate blood-borne microfilariae.
methodsHere we describe the performance of this test compared to a common clinical option - the 20 μL wet mount. Multiple counts were conducted by both methods on serially diluted infected blood to determine count correlations and on highly diluted and negative samples to compare sensitivities and specificities.
resultsAutomated counts correlated well (R
conclusionThese results indicate that the automated system is a viable option to replace current manual options in-clinic while combining superior sensitivity with greater convenience.
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.