ArticleIranian journal of medical sciences2012
ELISA Cut-off Point for the Diagnosis of Human Brucellosis; a Comparison with Serum Agglutination Test.
Article in Iranian journal of medical sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gold Nanobiosensor Based on the Localized Surface Plasmon Resonance is Able to Diagnose Human Brucellosis, Introducing a Rapid and Affordable Method.Nanoscale research letters · 2021Article
- Pulmonary involvement in brucellosis: A case report and literature review.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
- Human Brucellosis: Risks and Prevalence among Iranian Blood Donors Residing in Endemic Areas.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2020Article
- Seroprevalence and Molecular Identification ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Potential Effects of Climatic Parameters on Human Brucellosis in Fars Province, Iran, during 2009-2015.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
- Osteoarticular manifestations of human brucellosis: A review.World journal of orthopedics · 2019Review
- Epidemiological, laboratory, diagnostic and public health aspects of human brucellosis in western Iran.Asian Pacific journal of tropical biomedicine · 2013Article
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
backgroundBrucellosis is a world-wide disease, which has a diverse clinical manifestation, and its diagnosis has to be proven by laboratory data. Serum agglutination test (SAT) is the most-widely used test for diagnosing brucellosis. The enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) can also determine specific antibody classes against brucella. It is a sensitive, simple and rapid test, which could be an acceptable alternative to SAT with fewer limitations, however, like any other new test it should be further evaluated and standardized for various populations. This study was planned to determine an optimal cut-off point, for ELISA which would offer maximum sensitivity and specificity for the test when compared to SAT.
methodsFour hundred and seven patients with fever and other compatible symptoms of brucellosis were enrolled in the study. Serum agglutination test, 2-Mercaptoethanol test, and ELISA were performed on their sera.
resultsThe cut-off point of 53 IU/ml of ELISA-IgG yielded the maximal sensitivity and specificity comparing to the other levels of ELISA-IgG, and was considered the best cut off-point of ELISA-IgG to diagnose acute brucellosis. At this cut-off, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were 84.09%, 85.38%, 62.20, 94.90, 5.75, 0.18, respectively.
conclusionThe best cut-off point of ELISA-IgG is 53 IU/ml, which yields the maximal sensitivity and specificity to diagnose acute brucellosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23115425PMC3470292What 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.