↓ Skip to main content

Comparative performance of reference laboratory tests and in-clinic tests for Giardia in canine feces

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative performance of reference laboratory tests and in-clinic tests for Giardia in canine feces
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13071-018-2990-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Mizhquiri Barbecho, Dwight D. Bowman, Janice L. Liotta

Abstract

We examined the performance of four in-clinic Giardia diagnostic tests by comparing results to three laboratory methods for detection of Giardia. A set of 177 fecal samples originally submitted to a commercial laboratory by veterinarians for routine ova and parasite (O&P) testing was used. Specimens were examined by direct immunofluorescence assay (DFA) for presence of Giardia cysts which served as the gold standard. Fecal samples were tested using a Giardia-specific cyst wall antigen microtiter plate format enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and each of the in-clinic assays adhering to the package insert for each kit. Evaluated were four in-clinic antigen test kits: VetScan® Canine Giardia Rapid Test (Abaxis), Anigen® Rapid CPV-CCV-Giardia Antigen Test (BioNote), SNAP® Giardia Test (IDEXX) and Witness® Giardia Test (Zoetis). In the comparison of the in-clinic tests to the DFA standard test sensitivity ranged between 70.0-87.1%, and specificity ranged between 71.1-93.4%. Of the tests evaluated here, the SNAP test had the highest sensitivity and specificity. The SNAP test had the highest percent positive and percent negative agreement when compared to the microtiter plate format ELISA and the O&P assay.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Other 2 5%
Professor 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 10 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 14 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2021.
All research outputs
#6,330,851
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#1,398
of 5,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,630
of 331,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#36
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.