ArticleTropical medicine and health2016
Latent class evaluation of three serological tests for the diagnosis of human brucellosis in Bangladesh.
Article in Tropical medicine and health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh: Current scenario and future outlook.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2024Review
- Performance characteristics and costs of serological tests for brucellosis in a pastoralist community of northern Tanzania.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA Bayesian latent class evaluation was used to estimate the true prevalence of brucellosis in livestock farmers and patients with prolonged pyrexia (PP) and to validate three conditionally dependent serological tests: indirect ELISA (iELISA), Rose Bengal Test (RBT), and standard tube agglutination (STAT). A total of 335 sera from livestock farmers and 300 sera from PP patients were investigated.
resultsThe true prevalence of brucellosis in livestock farmers and PP patients was estimated to be 1.1 % (95 % credibility interval (CrI) 0.1-2.8) and 1.7 % (95 % CrI 0.2-4.1), respectively. Specificities of all tests investigated were higher than 97.8 % (95 % CrI 96.1-99.9). The sensitivities varied from 68.1 % (95 % CrI 54.5-80.7) to 80.6 % (95 % CrI 63.6-93.8). The negative predictive value of all the three tests in both populations was very high and more than 99.5 % (95 % CrI 98.6-99.9). The positive predictive value (PPV) of all three tests varied from 27.9 % (95 % CrI 3.6-62.0) to 36.3 % (95 % CrI 5.6-70.5) in livestock farmers and 39.8 % (95 % CrI 6.0-75.2) to 42.7 % (95 % CrI 6.4-83.2) in patients with PP. The highest PPV were 36.3 % for iELISA and 42.7 % for RBT in livestock farmers and pyrexic patients, respectively.
conclusionsIn such a low prevalence scenario, serology alone does not help in diagnosis and thereby therapeutic decision-making. Applying a second test with high specificity and/or testing patients having history of exposure with known risk factors and/or testing patients having some clinical signs and symptoms of brucellosis may increase the positive predictive value of the serologic tests.
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.