ArticleEpidemiology and infection2018
Bronchoalveolar lavage for diagnosis of tuberculosis infection in elephants.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2018. 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.
- Ultrasonographic Assessment of the Lungs in Asiatic Elephants (Elephas maximus).Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2026Article
- Seroprevalence of tuberculosis and hematological variations in captive and orphaned wild elephants (Elephas maximus maximus) in Sri Lanka.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tuberculosis (TB) has been known to affect elephants for thousands of years. It was put into spotlight when few circus elephants were diagnosed carrying Mycobacterium (M.) tuberculosis. Because of the zoonotic risk and high susceptibility to M. tuberculosis, periodic testing was enacted since, in captive breeding programmes. Presently, trunk wash is the recommended diagnostic procedure for TB. Trunk wash, however, puts the operator at risk, has low sensitivity, and is prone to contamination. Here, bronchoalveolar lavage is described for the first time for TB diagnosis in elephants. Bronchial, trunk and mouth fluids were investigated using bacterial culture, M. tuberculosis complex (MTC)-specific real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) and mycobacterial genus-specific qPCR for overall presence of mycobacteria or mycobacterial DNA including bacteria or DNA of closely related genera, respectively, in 14 elephants. Neither bacteria of the MTC nor their DNA were identified in any of the elephants. Yet, 25% of the cultures grew non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) or closely related bacterial species. Furthermore, 85% of the samples contained DNA of NTM or closely related bacterial genera. This finding might explain continued false-positive results from various serological tests. From a zoonotic point of view, bronchoalveolar lavage is safer for the testing personal, has higher probability of capturing MTC and, through PCR, identifies DNA NTM in elephants. Yet, necessary endoscopic equipment, animal sedation and access to a TB reference laboratory might pose challenging requirements in remote conditions in some elephant range countries.
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.