ArticlePreventive veterinary medicine2005
Evaluation of a French ELISA for the detection of Salmonella Enteritidis and Salmonella Typhimurium in flocks of laying and breeding hens.
Article in Preventive veterinary medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Stability of rRNA in Heat-killed Salmonella enterica Cells and Its Detection by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridisation (FISH).Tropical life sciences research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In France, the regular and compulsory detection of Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) and Salmonella Typhimurium (ST) in flocks of breeding and laying hens is based on bacteriological examination of environmental swabs and faeces samples. The aim of this study was to compare this bacteriological examination with a serological method (ELISA) developed in our laboratory. This ELISA was first evaluated by use of artificially infected hens. During these experimental infection studies, several groups of hens were inoculated with SE, ST, different vaccines and different Salmonella serovars to calculate the experimental parameters of our ELISA. Then, in a field study, 43 flocks were followed monthly using two bacteriological samples (environmental swab and pool of faeces) and 20 serological samples (sera or yolks). Twenty-seven flocks without SE or ST gave a negative serological response throughout their surveillance. Among the 10 various serovars different from SE and ST isolated in this study, S. Heidelberg, S. Agona and S. Hadar gave seropositive results in seven flocks. Consequently, this ELISA was not specific of SE and ST as it detected serovars sharing or not common antigens with SE and ST. Seropositive results were also obtained each month for two flocks where no Salmonella could be isolated. Finally, in seven flocks found infected with SE or ST, the positive ELISA results appeared later than the bacteriological detection. Therefore, for the detection of chicken flocks recently infected with SE or ST, bacteriological examination currently used in France seems to be more appropriate than this ELISA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.