Literature DB >> 2211321

Evaluation of heartworm immunodiagnostic tests.

C H Courtney1, J A Cornell.   

Abstract

In this report, the use of appropriate statistical methods for the evaluation of heartworm immunodiagnostic tests is discussed. The evaluation of these tests is complicated by factors causing variation in sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and predictive values of positive and negative test results. The primary sources of inconsistency are variation in the prevalence of heartworm infection among populations of dogs and the sensitivity of immunodiagnostic tests to various categories of heartworm infections (ie, patent, immune-mediated occult, unisex occult, and immature occult). Sample size (ie, number of dogs tested) affects the confidence limit values of sensitivity and specificity. At least 100 dogs should be used in each testing group (infected and uninfected) to generate values of sensitivity or specificity within reasonably narrow confidence limits. Use of more than 200 dogs in each testing group contributes little to further narrowing of confidence limits. The selection of appropriate statistical tests for comparison of tests or comparison of the sensitivity or specificity of a single diagnostic test to various categories of heartworm infections is critical. The McNemar paired chi 2 test is appropriate for comparison of diagnostic tests, but it must be done by use of duplicate sera from each animal. A chi 2 test of independence, or, in the case of a small sample size, the Fisher exact test, is appropriate for comparing the sensitivity or specificity of a single diagnostic test to various categories of heartworm infection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2211321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Vet Med Assoc        ISSN: 0003-1488            Impact factor:   1.936


  7 in total

1.  Antibody against an Anaplasma marginale MSP5 epitope common to tick and erythrocyte stages identifies persistently infected cattle.

Authors:  D Knowles; S Torioni de Echaide; G Palmer; T McGuire; D Stiller; T McElwain
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  The validity of some haematological and ELISA methods for the diagnosis of canine heartworm disease.

Authors:  M Martini; G Capelli; G Poglayen; F Bertotti; C Turilli
Journal:  Vet Res Commun       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.459

3.  Comparison of serological detection methods for diagnosis of Ehrlichia canis infections in dogs.

Authors:  Myriam Bélanger; Heather L Sorenson; Michelle K France; Michael V Bowie; Anthony F Barbet; Edward B Breitschwerdt; A Rick Alleman
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Comparative Study of Serological Tests for Mycoplasma synoviae Diagnosis in Commercial Poultry Breeders.

Authors:  R L Luciano; A L S P Cardoso; G F Z Stoppa; A M I Kanashiro; A G M de Castro; E N C Tessari
Journal:  Vet Med Int       Date:  2011-04-03

5.  Survey of Canine Dirofilaria immitis Infection in New Caledonia.

Authors:  S Watier-Grillot; J-L Marié; O Cabre; B Davoust
Journal:  Vet Med Int       Date:  2011-04-11

6.  Pig-hunting dogs are an at-risk population for canine heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) infection in eastern Australia.

Authors:  Bronwyn Orr; Gemma Ma; Wei Ling Koh; Richard Malik; Jacqui M Norris; Mark E Westman; Denise Wigney; Graeme Brown; Michael P Ward; Jan Šlapeta
Journal:  Parasit Vectors       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 3.876

7.  Detection of heartworm antigen without cross-reactivity to helminths and protozoa following heat treatment of canine serum.

Authors:  Jeff M Gruntmeir; Nina M Thompson; Maureen T Long; Byron L Blagburn; Heather D S Walden
Journal:  Parasit Vectors       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 3.876

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.