Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Comparison of eight rapid poop tests for canine parvovirus detection
By Walter-Weingärtner, Julia et al.·Published in Viruses·2021·Clinic of Small Animal Medicine, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Veterinaerstrasse 13, 80539 Munich, Germany, Germany·View original on Crossref →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of Eight Commercially Available Faecal Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Canine Parvovirus Antigen
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 150 dogs was tested for canine parvovirus (CPV) using eight different quick tests that check for the virus in their stool. While these tests can give results in minutes, they showed low sensitivity, meaning they missed many cases of infection. The best test, VetexpertRapidTestCPVAg®, correctly identified about 34% of infected dogs. However, a negative result from any of these tests doesn't completely rule out CPV infection, especially in unvaccinated dogs. It's important for pet owners to consult their vet if they suspect their dog has parvovirus, even if a quick test comes back negative.
People also search for: dog parvovirus symptoms · canine parvovirus test accuracy · quick test for dog parvovirus
Abstract
A real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is considered the gold standard for the laboratory diagnosis of canine parvovirus (CPV) infection but can only be performed in specialized laboratories. Several point-of-care tests (POCT), detecting CPV antigens in faeces within minutes, are commercially available. The aim of this study was to evaluate eight POCT in comparison with qPCR. Faecal samples of 150 dogs from three groups (H: 50 client-owned, healthy dogs, not vaccinated within the last four weeks; S: 50 shelter dogs, healthy, not vaccinated within the last four weeks; p = 50 dogs with clinical signs of CPV infection) were tested with eight POCT and qPCR. Practicability, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), as well as overall accuracy were determined. To assess the differences between and agreement among POCT, McNemar’s test and Cohen’s Kappa statistic were performed. Specificity and PPV were 100.0% in all POCT. Sensitivity varied from 22.9–34.3% overall and from 32.7–49.0% in group P. VetexpertRapidTestCPVAg® had the highest sensitivity (34.3% overall, 49.0% group P) and differed significantly from the 3 POCT with the lowest sensitivities (Fassisi®Parvo (27.7% overall, 36.7% group P), Primagnost®ParvoH+K (24.3% overall, 34.7% group P), FASTest®PARVOCard (22.9% overall, 32.7% group P)). The agreement among all POCT was at least substantial (kappa >0.80). A positive POCT result confirmed the infection with CPV in unvaccinated dogs, whereas a negative POCT result did not definitely exclude CPV infection due to the low sensitivity of all POCT.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on Crossref: https://doi.org/10.3390/v13102080