Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28640908›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Evaluating diagnostic tests for bovine tuberculosis in the southern part of Germany: A latent class analysis.

Valerie-Beau Pucken, Gabriela Knubben-Schweizer, Dörte Döpfer, Andreas Groll, Angela Hafner-Marx, Stefan Hörmansdorfer, Carola Sauter-Louis, Reinhard K Straubinger, Pia Zimmermann, Sonja Hartnack

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Droplet digital PCR as alternative to microbiological culture forFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Real-Time PCR Validation forFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Modeling the Accuracy of TwoFrontiers in veterinary science · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Valerie-Beau PuckenClinic for Ruminants with Ambulatory and Herd Health Services, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Oberschleißheim, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8517-9350
Gabriela Knubben-SchweizerClinic for Ruminants with Ambulatory and Herd Health Services, Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Dörte DöpferFood Animal Production Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Andreas GrollWorkgroup Financial Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Angela Hafner-MarxBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Stefan HörmansdorferBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Carola Sauter-LouisInstitute for Epidemiology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Greifswald, Germany.
Reinhard K StraubingerInstitute for Infectious Diseases and Zoonoses, Department of Veterinary Science, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Pia ZimmermannBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Sonja HartnackSection of Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Germany has been officially free of bovine tuberculosis since 1996. However, in the last years there has been an increase of bovine tuberculosis cases, particularly in the southern part of Germany, in the Allgäu region. As a consequence a one-time tuberculosis surveillance program was revisited with different premortal and postmortal tests. The aim of this paper was to estimate diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of the different tests used within this surveillance program. In the absence of a perfect test with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity, thus in the absence of a gold standard, a Bayesian latent class approach with two different datasets was performed. The first dataset included 389 animals, tested with single intra-dermal comparative cervical tuberculin (SICCT) test, PCR and pathology; the second dataset contained 175 animals, tested with single intra-dermal cervical tuberculin (SICT) test, Bovigam® assay, pathology and culture. Two-way conditional dependencies were considered within the models. Additionally, inter-laboratory agreement (five officially approved laboratories) of the Bovigam® assay was assessed with Cohen's kappa test (21 blood samples). The results are given in posterior means and 95% credibility intervals. The specificities of the SICT test, SICCT test, PCR and pathology ranged between 75.8% [68.8-82.2%] and 99.0% [96.8-100%]. The Bovigam® assay stood out with a very low specificity (6.9% [3.6-11.1%]), though it had the highest sensitivity (95.7% [91.3-99.2%]). The sensitivities of the SICCT test, PCR, SICT test, pathology and culture varied from 57.8% [48.0-67.6%] to 88.9% [65.5-99.7%]. The prevalences were 19.8% [14.6-26.5%] (three-test dataset) and 7.7% [4.2-12.3%] (four-test dataset). Among all pairwise comparisons the highest agreement was 0.62 [0.15-1]). In conclusion, the specificity of the Bovigam® assay and the inter-laboratory agreement were lower than expected.

Indexed as

AnimalsBayes TheoremCattleEpidemiological MonitoringGermanySensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosis, Bovine

Identifiers

PMID28640908
PMCPMC5481003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.