Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How accurate is the Rivalta test for diagnosing feline infectious
By Fischer, Yvonne et al.·Published in Veterinary clinical pathology·2012·Clinic of Small Animal Medicine, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Diagnostic accuracy of the Rivalta test for feline infectious peritonitis.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
A group of cats with fluid buildup in their abdomen were tested using the Rivalta test to see if they had feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). The test showed a high accuracy for diagnosing FIP, especially in younger cats, with a sensitivity of 91.3% and a negative predictive value of 93.4%. However, the test's overall effectiveness was lower than expected, particularly in older cats or those with other conditions like lymphoma or infections. The study suggests that while the Rivalta test can be useful, it may not be definitive for all cats with effusions.
People also search for: cat fluid in abdomen · feline infectious peritonitis test · Rivalta test for cats · cat abdominal effusion diagnosis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Rivalta test has been used routinely in Europe to diagnose feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) in cats with effusions, but its diagnostic accuracy is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of the Rivalta test for FIP and to identify correlations between a positive Rivalta test and variables measured in effusion fluid and peripheral blood. METHODS: In this retrospective study, medical records of cats with effusions were reviewed, and cats with conclusive results for the Rivalta test were included. The prevalence of FIP in this population was determined, and sensitivity, specificity, and PPV and NPV of the Rivalta test were calculated. Variables measured in effusion fluid and peripheral blood were compared between cats that had positive or negative Rivalta tests using the Mann-Whitney U-test and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 851 cats with effusions, 782 had conclusively positive or negative results for the Rivalta test. A definitive final diagnosis was made in 497 of these cats. Prevalence of FIP in cats with effusion and a conclusive Rivalta test result was 34.6%. The Rivalta test had a sensitivity of 91.3%, specificity of 65.5%, PPV of 58.4%, and NPV of 93.4% for the diagnosis of FIP. These values increased when cats with lymphoma or bacterial infections were excluded, or when only cats ≤ 2 years were considered. Increased effusion cholesterol concentration and specific gravity as well as decreased serum albumin:globulin ratio and hyperbilirubinemia were positively correlated with positive Rivalta test results. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of the Rivalta test for the diagnosis of FIP were lower than previously reported except when used in young cats. The components in effusions that lead to a positive Rivalta test remain unknown, but the positivity is not simply related to high total protein concentration.
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/22913882/