ArticleEpidemiology and infection2013
Comparison of prevalence estimation of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection by sampling slaughtered cattle with macroscopic lesions vs. systematic sampling.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comprehensive review of paratuberculosis in animals and its implications for public health.Open veterinary journal · 2024Review
- Prevalence of paratuberculosis in cattle based on gross and microscopic lesions in Ethiopia.BMC veterinary research · 2023Article
- Detection ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of volatile organic compounds for the classification and identification of mycobacterial species.PloS one · 2018Article
- Culture-Independent Identification ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2017Article
- Evaluation of age-dependent susceptibility in calves infected with two doses of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis using pathology and tissue culture.Veterinary research · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to identify the most reliable approach for prevalence estimation of Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP) infection in clinically healthy slaughtered cattle. Sampling of macroscopically suspect tissue was compared to systematic sampling. Specimens of ileum, jejunum, mesenteric and caecal lymph nodes were examined for MAP infection using bacterial microscopy, culture, histopathology and immunohistochemistry. MAP was found most frequently in caecal lymph nodes, but sampling more tissues optimized the detection rate. Examination by culture was most efficient while combination with histopathology increased the detection rate slightly. MAP was detected in 49/50 animals with macroscopic lesions representing 1.35% of the slaughtered cattle examined. Of 150 systematically sampled macroscopically non-suspect cows, 28.7% were infected with MAP. This indicates that the majority of MAP-positive cattle are slaughtered without evidence of macroscopic lesions and before clinical signs occur. For reliable prevalence estimation of MAP infection in slaughtered cattle, systematic random sampling is essential.
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.