ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine
Detection of different serotypes of Salmonella enterica in experimentally inoculated equine fecal samples by commercially available rapid tests.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of detection methods forJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2020Article
- AtypicalCase reports in veterinary medicine · 2020Article
- A Cautionary Report for Pathogen Identification Using Shotgun Metagenomics; A Comparison to Aerobic Culture and Polymerase Chain Reaction forFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- Visual detection technique for efficient screening and isolation of Salmonella based on a novel enrichment assay using chromatography membrane.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSalmonella enterica can significantly impact management of animal facilities. Comprehensive screening is essential for effective control in high-risk populations. Availability of reliable point-of-care diagnostic tests would facilitate these efforts. HYPOTHESIS/
objectivesCompare the ability of commercially available rapid diagnostic assays (2 lateral flow immunoassays [LFIs], DNA hybridization [DNAH], real-time PCR [qPCR]), and culture to detect common serotypes of S. enterica in feces. ANIMALS: n/a.
methodsIn an experimental study, 112 S. enterica isolates were randomly selected from the 10 most common serotypes recovered at a veterinary hospital. Archived isolates were amplified in broth and standardized inocula (100 colony forming units) were incubated with equine feces in tetrathionate broth (TET). Cultures were tested in a blinded fashion by using LFIs, DNAH, qPCR, and culture.
resultsThe LFIs detected 84% and 67% of isolates, respectively, but reactivity varied among serotypes. Both reacted poorly with serotype Cerro (Group K) isolates, and 1 LFI did not react with any serotype Mbandaka (Group C1) or Montevideo (Group C1) isolates. DNAH detected 94% of isolates, whereas culture and qPCR most reliably detected all serotypes. False-positive results were obtained for 4 negative controls by using DNAH and 1 negative control by using qPCR, but LFIs and culture had no false-positive results. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Culture, qPCR, and DNAH were effective in detecting most Salmonella isolates, but have limited application at point-of-care settings. LFIs are appealing as point-of-care tests because of low cost and ease of use, but limited detection of some serotypes needs to be evaluated with samples obtained from naturally infected animals.
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.