Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How well commercial scanners detect dog and cat microchips
By Lord, Linda K et al.·Published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association·2008·Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, 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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Sensitivity of commercial scanners to microchips of various frequencies implanted in dogs and cats.
Plain-English summary
A study involving nearly 4,000 dogs and cats at animal shelters tested how well different microchip scanners could detect implanted microchips. The scanners showed varying levels of success, with some being able to read most of the commonly used microchips, but none were perfect. The best scanners detected over 94% of the 128- and 134.2-kHz microchips, while one scanner struggled with the 125-kHz microchips, detecting only about 66% to 75%. This highlights the importance of using proper scanning techniques and checking pets multiple times to ensure their microchips can be read effectively.
People also search for: dog microchip scanner sensitivity · cat microchip detection · best microchip scanner for pets · why can't my vet read my pet's microchip
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of 4 commercially available microchip scanners used to detect or read encrypted and unencrypted 125-, 128-, and 134.2-kHz microchips under field conditions following implantation in dogs and cats at 6 animal shelters. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. Animals-3,949 dogs and cats at 6 animal shelters. PROCEDURES: Each shelter was asked to enroll 657 to 660 animals and to implant microchips in 438 to 440 animals (each shelter used a different microchip brand). Animals were then scanned with 3 or 4 commercial scanners to determine whether microchips could be detected. Scanner sensitivity was calculated as the percentage of animals with a microchip in which the microchip was detected. RESULTS: None of the scanners examined had 100% sensitivity for any of the microchip brands. In addition, there were clear differences among scanners in regard to sensitivity. The 3 universal scanners capable of reading or detecting 128- and 134.2-kHz microchips all had sensitivities > or = 94.8% for microchips of these frequencies. Three of the 4 scanners had sensitivities > or = 88.2% for 125-kHz microchips, but sensitivity of one of the universal scanners for microchips of this frequency was lower (66.4% to 75.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that some currently available universal scanners have high sensitivity to microchips of the frequencies commonly used in the United States, although none of the scanners had 100% sensitivity. To maximize microchip detection, proper scanning technique should be used and animals should be scanned more than once. Microchipping should remain a component of a more comprehensive pet identification program.
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/19046030/