4.1 Article

Evaluation of a point-of-care test for canine C-reactive protein

Journal

VETERINARY CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 384-388

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-165X.2011.00339.x

Keywords

Acute phase protein; ELISA; inflammation; lateral flow immunoassay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In veterinary medicine, there is increasing interest in measuring C-reactive protein (CRP) as a tool for diagnosis and monitoring of inflammatory diseases. Reported CRP concentrations for healthy dogs have ranged from 0 to 8.9 mg/L. Objectives: The aims of this study were to evaluate a canine-specific point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassay for qualitative CRP measurement in healthy and diseased dogs and to compare results with those obtained by a quantitative ELISA. Methods: Blood samples from 73 client-owned dogs were available for testing: 16 healthy dogs and 57 dogs with a variety of infectious, inflammatory, or neoplastic diseases. CRP was measured in heparinized whole blood samples and serum with the TECOmedical Dog CRP-visual POC test. A red line develops in the POC device if CRP is >= 5 mg/L, and results are scored as negative or positive. An ELISA validated previously for canine serum was used as the reference method. Results: For all dogs, serum CRP concentrations measured by the ELISA ranged from 0.1 to >= 350 mg/L (median = 38 mg/L). Percentages of the CRP POC test results that agreed with the ELISA results were 98.6% for whole blood and 97.3% for serum samples. For serum samples, sensitivity of the POC test was 96.4% and specificity was 81.3%. For whole blood, sensitivity was 94.7% and specificity was 93.8%. Conclusions: The POC test had very good agreement with the ELISA test and had high sensitivity and specificity; therefore, it can be used as a qualitative test to screen for increases in CRP concentrations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available