ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2010
A comparison of Brucella IgG and IgM ELISA assays with agglutination methodology.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brucellosis of the spine - A global public health problem - An analysis of 37 patients from a 'high risk' region.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2023Article
- Clinical Interpretation of Detection of IgM Anti-Polish journal of microbiology · 2019Article
- Detection of IgM antibrucella antibody in the absence of IgGs: a challenge for the clinical interpretation of brucella serology.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2014Article
- A high percentage of serum samples that test reactive by enzyme immunoassay for anti-Brucella antibodies are not confirmed by the standard tube agglutination test.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2012Article
- Application of the microagglutination test for serologic diagnosis of human brucellosis.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite brucellosis having a low incidence rate in developed nations, it still remains the leading zoonotic disease in the world. Culturing of Brucella spp. provides good specificity but in cases where the fever is intermittent, sensitivity is problematic. This has led to the development of serological methods of detection. Brucella agglutination methods have been considered the serological gold-standard since their inception, although commercial Brucella IgG and IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays are available to potentially aid in the diagnosis of the disease. In our study, anti-Brucella IgG and IgM assays were compared with agglutination. Individually the IgG assay tested had an accuracy of 56% and the IgM assay had an accuracy of 77%. These poor accuracies reinforce Centers for Disease Control's conclusion that nonagglutination tests should not be used to confirm brucellosis.
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.