Cited by 21Parasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentHelminth infection and controlResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies

Comparative methodology for the detection and differentiation of circulating microfilariae of Dirofilaria immitis in the dog

Mylonakis, M.E., Papadopoulos, E., Koutinas, A.F., Paitaki, C., Leontides, L.·2004·Journal of Helminthology

Abstract

The sensitivities of the Knott's test (four 20-microl sediment aliquots), quantitative buffy coat capillary tube method (QBC tube, 111 microl of whole blood) and direct blood smear (DBS, 20 microl of whole blood) were evaluated for the detection of microfilaraemia in dogs. Undiluted whole blood samples taken from 70 Dirofilaria immitis antigen-positive dogs and 10 serially diluted microfilaraemic blood samples at concentrations of 400, 200, 100, 50, 25 and 12 microfilariae (mff) ml(-1) were examined. For filarial speciation, the buffy coat of QBC tubes was mixed with one drop of methylene blue-formalin solution and examined as a direct smear. In 52/70 microfilaraemic blood samples, the number of mff ranged from 12 to 321987 ml(-1) (median: 3199 ml(-1)). The diagnostic sensitivity of the Knott's test, QBC tube method and DBS in undiluted blood samples attained the 100%, 98% and 92.3% levels, respectively. Eighteen dogs tested amicrofilaraemic by all three methods. At concentrations of 400 mff ml(-1), a 100% sensitivity was found by all three methods, while at 200 mff ml(-1) the Knott's test, QBC tube and DBS were 100%, 100% and 90% sensitive, respectively. The relevant figures at 100 mff ml(-1) were 100%, 100% and 80%, at 50 mff ml(-1) 100%, 100% and 50%, at 25 mff ml(-1) 100%, 100% and 10% and at 12 mff ml(-1) 80%, 50% and 10%. At 50 and 25 mff ml(-1), the DBS was less sensitive compared to the other two methods, while at 12 mff ml(-1), only to the Knott's test. A significant correlation was found between the QBC tube method and Knott's test regarding mff speciation. Therefore, the QBC method may be considered a reliable alternative to the Knott's test for both the detection and speciation of mff in the dog.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/joh2003210

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mylonakis, M. E., Papadopoulos, E., Koutinas, A. F., Paitaki, C., & Leontides, L.
Affiliations
  • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR)
  • University of Thessaly (GR)
Corresponding author
Koutinas, A.F.
Venue
Journal of Helminthology
Published
2004-06
Volume
78
Issue
2
Pages
137-140
ISSN
  • 0022-149X (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2697
OpenAlex
W1988319750
Cited by
21
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Helminthology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Thessaly Institutional Repository (University of Thessaly) (submittedVersion)
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
Dirofilaria immitis, canine heartworm disease, microfilaremia, diagnostic sensitivity, dogs, diagnostic test comparison
MeSH terms
Animals, Blood Specimen Collection, Dirofilaria immitis, Dirofilariasis, Dog Diseases, Dogs, Female, Male, Microfilariae, 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