Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Hair and saliva allergy tests do not work in dogs
By Coyner, K & Schick, A·Published in The Journal of small animal practice·2019·Dermatology Clinic for Animals, United States·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Hair and saliva test fails to identify allergies in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A study tested hair and saliva samples from a known allergic dog and a healthy dog to see if these tests could accurately identify allergies. The results showed that the tests did not reliably differentiate between allergic and non-allergic dogs, and even fake fur samples produced similar results. Because of this, the researchers concluded that hair and saliva tests are not effective for diagnosing allergies in dogs and should not replace proper veterinary evaluations.
People also search for: dog allergy testing accuracy · dog saliva test for allergies · how to diagnose dog allergies
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several companies offer saliva and/or hair tests for food and environmental allergies in companion animals, but provide no validation of test accuracy. We examined one such hair and saliva allergy test to determine whether it could reliably differentiate between a normal dog and an allergic dog, and to examine test repeatability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten fur and saliva samples were submitted from a known allergic dog and a normal, non-allergic dog. Five fake fur samples and water were also submitted to determine whether the test could differentiate between a real dog and toy animal. The company performed testing for 128 food and environmental allergens. Statistical analyses were performed to determine whether the response distribution differed significantly between dogs, using the Pearson chi-square coefficient, as well as to determine test-retest reliability by calculating Cohen's kappa for each allergen. RESULTS: The distribution of test results from samples obtained from allergic, non-allergic or fake dogs was not different from that expected due to random chance. Test-retest reproducibility was poor to slight. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Hair and saliva testing should not be used to diagnose allergies and is not a substitute for veterinary-directed allergy evaluation and diagnostics.
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/30371955/