• Open Access

ERRATUM

Errata

This article corrects:

  1. Comparison of 4 Giardia Diagnostic Tests in Diagnosis of Naturally Acquired Canine Chronic Subclinical Giardiasis Volume 24, Issue 2, 293–297, Article first published online: 28 January 2010

In Rishniw et al.,1Table 2 contained several errors. The corrected table is reproduced below in its entirety.

Table 2.   Performance of Giardia diagnostic tests compared to FAB coproscopy.
TestSensitivity
(95%CI)
Specificity
(95%CI)
Study
prevalence
PPV
(95%CI)
NPV
(95%CI)
PLR
(95%CI)
NLR
(95%CI)
  1. PPV = Positive Predictive Value; NPV = Negative Predictive Value; PLR = Positive Likelihood Ratio; NLR = Negative Likelihood Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval

Techlab ELISA0.51 (0.45–0.56)0.96 (0.84–0.99)0.870.99 (0.95–1.00)0.23 (0.17–0.29)11.88 (3.05–46.40)0.52 (0.46–0.58)
Giardia SNAP test0.77 (0.71–0.81)0.92 (0.80–0.97)0.860.98 (0.96–0.99)0.39 (0.30–0.48)9.44 (3.69–24.20)0.25 (0.20–0.31)
ZnSO4 flotation0.49 (0.44–0.53)0.94 (0.85–0.98)0.900.99 (0.96–1.00)0.17 (0.13–0.20)8.37 (3.22–21.74)0.55 (0.51–0.59)
ZnSO4 flotation (pooled)0.78 (0.72–0.83)0.65 (0.44–0.81)0.890.95 (0.9–0.97)0.26 (0.17–0.40)2.33 (1.32–4.22)0.33 (0.25–0.45)

Ancillary