Comparison of heartworm antigen test kit performance in dogs having low heartworm burdens
Abstract
Sensitivity and specificity of four in-clinic heartworm antigen test kits, AbboScreen (Abbott Laboratories), Snap PF (IDEXX Laboratories), Solo Step (HESKA Corporation), Witness (Synbiotics Corporation) and two heartworm antigen microwell plate assays, DiroCHEK (Synbiotics) and PetChek PF (IDEXX) were compared in a blinded study using serum or plasma drawn from 237 random source dogs, including 140 with necropsy-confirmed, low worm burden infections (minimum 1 worm, maximum 10, mean 2.3, median 3) and 97 confirmed heartworm-free at necropsy. In general, microwell format tests were more sensitive than membrane format tests and tests using ELISA technology were more sensitive than tests using lateral flow immunochromatographic technology. Percent sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were PetChek PF 76 and 97, DiroCHEK 71 and 94, SNAP PF 67 and 98, Solo Step 60 and 98, and AbboScreen 52 and 96. The Witness test protocol was changed by the manufacturer midway through the study, and the newer version of this test kit arrived containing a package insert alerting the user to a change in procedure, which purportedly resulted in improved sensitivity. PetChek was significantly more sensitive than all other tests except DiroCHEK and the new version of Witness. DiroCHEK was significantly more sensitive than all tests except PetCheck, SNAP and the new version of Witness. Snap was more sensitive than AbboScreen and the old version of Witness. Differences in specificity were not significant (P>0.05).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The frequent use of in-house antigen-ELISA tests is likely due to their direct availability in clinical practice and their comparatively high sensitivity and specificity, even in dogs with a low worm burden.
“The frequent use of in-house antigen-ELISA tests is likely to be due to their direct availability in clinical practice and the comparatively high sensitivity and specificity of the results obtained within minutes, even in dogs with a low worm burden (Courtney and Zeng 2001; Atkins 2003; Lee et al. 2011).”
From Current trends in canine dirofilariosis in Austria-do we face a pre-endemic status? (2020) · cites this paper as Courtney and Zeng 2001
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 4 · Cited by 81
- Authors
- Courtney, C. H., & Zeng, Q.-Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Courtney, Charles H
- Venue
- Veterinary Parasitology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-04
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 317-322
- ISSN
- 0304-4017 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049413557
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Veterinary Parasitology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Parasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Helminth infection and control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Research on Leishmaniasis Studies
- Keywords
- canine heartworm disease, diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, lateral flow immunoassay, ELISA, dogs
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Antigens, Helminth, Dirofilaria immitis, Dirofilariasis, Dog Diseases, Dogs, Female, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Sensitivity and Specificity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review