Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Accuracy of rapid canine parvovirus tests compared to PCR
By Schmitz, Silke et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc·2009·Small Animal Clinic, Germany·View original on PubMed →
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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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 three rapid commercial Canine parvovirus antigen detection tests with electron microscopy and polymerase chain reaction.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of dogs with severe diarrhea was tested for Canine parvovirus, a serious viral infection, using three different rapid tests. While these tests were quick and showed good accuracy in identifying the virus, they missed a significant number of actual cases compared to more reliable methods like PCR (polymerase chain reaction). This means that even if a rapid test comes back negative, it doesn't completely rule out parvovirus infection, especially if the dog shows typical symptoms. The study highlights the importance of using these rapid tests alongside more accurate methods for a proper diagnosis.
People also search for: dog diarrhea parvovirus test · Canine parvovirus symptoms · rapid tests for dog parvovirus
Abstract
Different antibody-based tests for rapid detection of Canine parvovirus antigens in feces are commercially available, allowing quick diagnosis in a clinical setting. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these tests compared with standard methods has not been evaluated so far. In the current study, 3 commercial tests were compared with immune-electron microscopy (IEM) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Dogs were divided into 3 groups: group A, samples from dogs with acute hemorrhagic diarrhea (n = 50); group B, dogs with chronic diarrhea (n = 10); and group C, dogs with no evidence of gastrointestinal disease (n = 40). Specificity of all 3 commercial tests versus PCR and IEM was good to excellent (92.2-100%). Sensitivity, in contrast, was poor: 15.8-26.3% versus PCR and 50-60% versus IEM. In group A, 10 dogs were positive by IEM and 24 dogs were positive by PCR. Positive PCR results were also obtained from animals in control groups (group B, 1 dog; group C, 5 dogs). No dog in group B or C was positive by IEM. In conclusion, the rapid tests are useful to diagnose canine parvoviral enteritis, but they do not rule out parvovirus infection in an animal with typical clinical signs. In addition, a small percentage of healthy dogs and dogs with chronic diarrhea showed positive PCR results; this may be due to asymptomatic/persistent infection or intestinal passage of virus. The significance of this finding remains unclear.
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 PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19407086/