Julia Trost 

IR I/2/10 GT
5/7/20
Data Collection

The researcher conducted a metacognitive analysis for their data collection. The selected

articles focus on the effectiveness of cerebrospinal fluid analysis, blood, and serum/plasma in

which ​real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (real-time RT-PCR) can be used

to detect Feline Enteric Coronavirus (FECV) RNA in the cerebrospinal fluid of cats.​ Their

research aims to discover new findings regarding diagnostic options for Feline Infectious

Peritonitis, a rare and fatal disease that can occur in cats. A metacognitive analysis will be the

most useful for the researcher’s topic because it will provide quantitative information to prove

the effectiveness of specific diagnostic methods. The objective of this data collection is to

identify whether real time RT-PCR can be used to support a diagnosis of Feline Infectious

Peritonitis (FIP).

Data Collection: A Literary Inquiry of the Effectiveness of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase

Chain Reaction (Real Time RT-PCR) in Detecting Feline Enteric Coronavirus (FECV)
RNA
Article Name  Article #1:  Article #2:  Article #3:  Article #4:  Article #5: 
"Detection of “Sensitivity "The "Detection of "Performance
Feline and Detection of Feline s of Different
Coronavirus Specificity of Feline Enteric Diagnostic
in a Real-Time Coronaviruse Coronavirus Tests for
Cerebrospinal Reverse s in Blood in Feces, Feline
Fluid for Transcriptase Samples from Tissues, and Infectious
Diagnosis of Polymerase Cats by Body Fluids Peritonitis in
Feline Chain mRNA of Naturally Challenging
Infectious Reaction RT-PCR."  Infected Cats Clinical
Peritonitis in Detecting by Reverse Cases." 
Cats with and Feline Transcriptase
without Coronavirus PCR." 
Neurological Mutations in
Signs."  Effusion and
Serum/Plasm
 a of Cats to
Diagnose
Feline
Infectious
Peritonitis.”  

Focus  Analyze Effectiveness Examine Study Evaluate

effectiveness of RT-PCR in blood epidemiology effectiveness
of RT-PCR in the effusion samples to of FECV  of using
detecting & possibly hint RT-PCR
FECV RNA  serum/plasma at a diagnosis when
of cats  of FIP  examining
feces for
FECV 

Objective  To evaluate Evaluate Collect blood Can RT-PCR Should this

sensitivity & serum/plasma samples from be used to test be used
specificity of samples 26 cats to screen cats to determine
real time using determine before the amount of
reverse RT-PCR to effectiveness allowing cats who shed
transcriptase diagnose FIP of RT-PCR in them into FECV in a
polymerase in cats  detecting FECV-free cattery/shelte
chain FECV RNA  catteries?  r? 
reaction (real
time RT-
PCR) in
discovering
Feline
Enteric
Coronavirus
RNA 

Participants  34 cats: 19 63 cats: 38 25 healthy 18 cats with N/A 

with cats had cats and 1 cat FIP 
definitive confirmed with clinical
diagnosis of FIP, 25 were signs
FIP, 15 with definitively suggesting
other diseases diagnosed FIP 
showing with another
clinical signs disease other
related to than FIP 
those of FIP 

Factors  Sensitivity, Sensitivity, Sensitivity, Sensitivity, N/A 

Measured  specificity, specificity, specificity, specificity,
 positive 95% positive positive
predictive confidence predictive predictive
values (PPV), intervals values (PPV), values (PPV),
and negative (95% CI) and negative and negative
predictive positive predictive predictive
values (NPV)  predictive values (NPV)  values (NPV) 
values (PPV),
and negative
predictive
values (NPV) 

Direct Quotes  “Although it “Although “Our findings “Because of “Although 

is known that the suggest the nature of cats with FIP 
RT-PCR can specificity of FCoVs may FECV will often 
give false the test in be present in infections, shed FECV, 
positive effusions was the blood our RT-PCR it is 
results, high, one samples from assay with inconsistent 
especially if false positive healthy cats plasma or and the virus 
performed result as well as serum cannot is shed at 
using serum occurred. The cats with be used to lower levels 
or plasma, use of clinical FIP.”  establish a than in 
this real time serum/plasma definite healthy cats; 
RT-PCR cannot be diagnosis of feline 
detecting recommende FIP. coronavirus 
FCoV RNA d due to a However, this in these cases 
in CSF can low viral load assay does is usually of 
be considered in the blood.”  provide new the enteric 
a reliable means to and not the 
specific tool identify FIP biotype.” 
for the asymptomatic
diagnosis of FECV
FIP.”   carriers.” 

Conclusions/ Real Time FIP detected 14 or 54% of RT-PCR in There is little

Limitations  RT-PCR in in effusion of cats were the to no need to
the CSF 25/59 cats, positive for plasma/serum test for FECV
showed a one of which FECV, cannot be in shelters
specificity of was a control including the used to detect given the
100% in and had 1 cat with FECV RNA unpredictabili
diagnosing kidney clinical signs. and thus ty and the
FIP in cats disease. High rate of diagnose FIP. fact that cats
with the dry FIP/FECV positivity RT-PCR is can shed the
form, and detected in among limited virus at any
85.7% in cats 2/59 cats. healthy cats because there time. Without
with the RT-PCR was implied poor are keeping
 neurological negative in specificity for asymptomatic kitten
form. Thus, 34/59 cats.   clinical cats that numbers low
real time diagnosis of appear and/or
RT-PCR can FIP. healthy but enforcing
be used to Positivity rate are in fact quarantine, it
detect the highest in carriers of will be hard
RNA of cats 6 months FECV. These regardless to
FECV in to 1 year old.   cats shed the stop FECV
order to virus in the from
diagnose FIP. feces, occurring in
A cat cannot spreading the shelters and
have FIP virus to catteries.  
without others.  
proven RNA
of FECV in
its
blood/CSF.  

           
 
 
Annotated Sources List 

Can-Sahna, K., et al. "The Detection of Feline Coronaviruses in Blood Samples from Cats by
mRNA RT-PCR." ​U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health,​ May
2007
The results suggest that the blood cannot be used to diagnose FIP, as FECV RNA
can be found in both healthy cats and cats with FIP. There are cats who may be FECV
positive but never catch FIP. A very small percentage of cats with FECV actually end up
developing FIP because FIP is so rare among cats. For this reason, the blood is not an
accurate method to test for FIP. Just because a perfectly healthy cat tests positive for
FECV in the blood does not mean one can assume a diagnosis of FIP.
This source is credible because it is published in the United States National
Library of Medicine, which was established by the government. It is important to identify
which mediums (blood, serum/plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, etc) can be used in order to
obtain accurate readings. Both this source and another about using RT-PCR in the
serum/plasma of cats helped to rule out potential diagnostic methods.

Doenges, Stephen, et al. "Detection of Feline Coronavirus in Cerebrospinal Fluid for Diagnosis
of Feline Infectious Peritonitis in Cats with and without Neurological Signs." Sage
Journals, vol. 18, no. 2, 3 Mar. 2015, pp. 104-09
 Analyzing RT-PCR in the CSF is the most effective compared to serum, plasma,
or blood. Countless studies have proven that CSF analysis is the best way to detect FECV
RNA through using RT-PCR. Fortunately, this study confirms that RT-PCR in the CSF is
highly effective when attempting to diagnose FIP; the specificity was very high, 100%. In
the future, veterinarians will hopefully know to use RT-PCR in CSF compared to other
options such as the blood, serum/plasma, and more.
This source is reliable because it comes from one of the top veterinary medicine
journals used internationally. It was recently published, meaning the researchers have
taken into account new findings in the field of veterinary medicine. The author evaluates
the set up of the experiment and identifies the control group. Overall, this source was
great for ruling out other methods when it comes to diagnosing FIP.

Felten, S., Leutenegger, C.M., Balzer, H. ​et al.​ Sensitivity and specificity of a real-time reverse
transcriptase polymerase chain reaction detecting feline coronavirus mutations in effusion
and serum/plasma of cats to diagnose feline infectious peritonitis. ​BMC Vet Res​ 13, 228
(2017).
This research study examines the use of RT-PCR in the serum/plasma of cats
instead of the more common way, the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). ​Although RT-PCR in
the CSF is the most effective, using RT-PCR in serum/plasma samples is not effective in
diagnosing FIP, as false positive results are likely to occur. No serum/plasma samples
tested positive for FIP in this study. If using RT-PCR, it is important to always use it in
the cerebrospinal fluid, as this could mean the difference between positive and
false-positive results.
This study is reliable because it comes from the main veterinary science journal
used to communicate research findings in the United States. Along with tables and
graphs, the author uses fascinating pictures of cells throughout the study to share the
results of the experiment. All in all, the study communicates an important message: test
for RT-PCR in the cerebrospinal fluid instead of the serum/plasma of the cat.

Giori, L., et al. "Performances of Different Diagnostic Tests for Feline Infectious Peritonitis in
Challenging Clinical Cases." National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S.
National Library of Medicine.
This study focuses on testing for FIP in the feces. Shelters and catteries often
examine the feces for diseases such as FECV, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV), and
more. Fecal testing for RT-PCR communicates the amount of shedding of the FECV in
catteries and shelters. This study concludes that the virus is shed in feces for several
weeks, but as time goes on, most cats will stop shedding FECV. Thus, testing for FECV
is dependent upon how long the cat has been in the shelter. If the cat just came into the
 shelter, testing for FECV in the feces may be appropriate. However, if the cat has been in
the shelter for a year or more, this test may not communicate any essential findings.
This source is reliable because it is published in the United States National
Library of Medicine, which is established by the government. The researcher’s adviser,
Dr. Niels Pedersen, was the main contributor to this article. It covered all aspects of
treatment and diagnosis, and compared each method to another. Within each method, Dr.
Pedersen cited previous research studies and the biology behind how each method can or
cannot work. The comparison between all of the different methods allowed the researcher
to pick the most effective diagnosis methods.

Herrewegh, A., et al. "Detection of Feline Coronavirus RNA in Feces, Tissues, and Body Fluids 
of Naturally Infected Cats by Reverse Transcriptase PCR." ​US National Library of 
Medicine National Institutes of Health​, Mar.1995, 
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228014/.
This study talks about how RT-PCR can be used to identify FECV in cats who
may show no symptoms at first. However, a diagnosis of FECV is not an indicator of
whether the cat will contract FIP or not. Several data tables are included with the factors
that were measured, the health of each of the cats being tested, the cats in the control
group, and the results of the study. Both specificity and sensitivity were utilized to
communicate the results. The sensitivity and specificity were high, meaning RT-PCR is
an effective tool for the diagnosis of FIP.
This source is reliable because it comes from a national science journal dedicated
to research publications. The results of this study were presented at an international
science conference in Germany. The author used multiple tables throughout the study and
communicated the research in a way that was easy for someone to understand with
background knowledge on the subject of FIP. In the end, this study proved that RT-PCR
can be used in the cerebrospinal fluid to detect FIP and contribute to an accurate
diagnosis.