vizeuse

The ANKC registration stats can help you with this - take pdf from this page. Newly recognised breeds have a row of 0s until they are registered

Without any 'gold-standard' requirement for testing and diagnosis, any system like this cannot be expected to be accurate. eg see; "Concurrence between clinical and pathologic diagnoses in a veterinary medical teaching hospital: 623 cases (1989 and 1999)." J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2004 Feb 1;224(3):403-6. Kent MS, Lucroy MD, Dank G, Lehenbauer TW, Madewell BR. -- there was disagreement between the clinical and pathologic diagnoses in approximately a third of the cases. and "Comparison of clinical and pathological diagnoses in dogs." Vet Q. 2005;27(1):2-10. Vos JH, Borst GH, Visser IJ, Soethout KC, de Haan L, Haffmans F, Hovius MP, Goedendorp P, de Groot MA, Prud'homme van Reine FH, van Soest IL, Willigenburg AH, van Woerden MA, Ziekman PG. -- At necropsy 42 cases were diagnosed as neoplasia, of which 52.4% had been diagnosed clinically. As to infectious diseases 55.0% of these diseases diagnosed at necropsy had been diagnosed clinically. ie just under half the tumours and 45% of infections were not diagnosed until post mortem. and an anecdote about reported diseases and disease reporting.. I was contacted by a person who said their dog had Addison's disease (hypoadrenocorticism). Only after much discussion did I learn that the dog had hypoadrenocorticism because his adrenal glands had been surgically removed (!). sometimes you need to know more than the one word diagnosis in the report.

Have you read an earlier AKC white paper (? from 2004-ish), based on the VMDB on breed-specific risks of disease? It also briefly mentions limitations on using this type of data. http://tinyurl.com/3sjmc46

My 'pooter tells me the article is free from the publishers website (hope I've got the linky correct) ETA: the Skeptivet blog has reviewed the paper here

When these sorts of tests became available overseas, someone posted this utube of a test on their dog.

As others have said - hang in there. A friend's dog had the intravascular form and survived. It was a bit of a bumpy ride (one step forward, two steps back), but she made it. Paws crossed for a great outcome.

Part 2 of the article is available free online from; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10900233 There is also an editorial in the same issue by Frank Nicholas, Clare Wade & Peter Williamson, that people might be interested to read.

FWIW, we've tried fresh mix maximal. The mud monkey doesn't like it at all; eats raw chicken, but won't touch this, even if I add sardines or a few pieces of dried liver to the bowl to try to get the eating started. Lucky we have a guzzle guts as well who hoovers it up the same as any other.