Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29657404›Full record

ArticleVeterinary world2018

Comparison of four polymerase chain reaction assays for the detection of

Eduardo J Boeri, María M Wanke, María J Madariaga, María L Teijeiro, Sebastian A Elena, Marcos D Trangoni

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary world, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Establishment of a rapid method for the detection ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Article
  3. The emergence ofEmerging microbes & infections · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Characterization of epididymal and testicular histologic lesions and use of immunohistochemistry and PCR on formalin-fixed tissues to detectJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2021
    Article
  6. Prevalence and Genomic Characterization ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eduardo J BoeriDepartment of Diagnosis and Biological Products Production, Division of Immunology and Diagnosis, Zoonosis Institute Dr. Luis Pasteur, Av. Diaz Velez 4821 (1405), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
María M WankeDepartment of Theriogenology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chorroarín 280 (1427), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
María J MadariagaDepartment of Diagnosis and Biological Products Production, Division of Immunology and Diagnosis, Zoonosis Institute Dr. Luis Pasteur, Av. Diaz Velez 4821 (1405), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
María L TeijeiroDepartment of Diagnosis and Biological Products Production, Division of Immunology and Diagnosis, Zoonosis Institute Dr. Luis Pasteur, Av. Diaz Velez 4821 (1405), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sebastian A ElenaNational Health Service and Food Quality (SENASA-DILAB) OIE/Brucellosis Reference Laboratory Talcahuano 1660 (1640), Martínez, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Marcos D TrangoniDepartment of Biotechnology, Center for Research in Veterinary and Agronomic Sciences - National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA), N. Repetto y de Los Reseros, 1686, Hurlingham, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
National Food Safety and Quality Service · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study aimed to compare the sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), and positive likelihood ratios (LR+) of four polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for the detection of MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 595 samples of whole blood, urine, and genital fluids were evaluated between October 2014 and November 2016. To compare PCR assays, the gold standard was defined using a combination of different serological and microbiological test. Bacterial isolation from urine and blood cultures was carried out. Serological methods such as rapid slide agglutination test, indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, agar gel immunodiffusion test, and buffered plate antigen test were performed. Four genes were evaluated: (i) The gene coding for the BCSP31 protein, (ii) the ribosomal gene coding for the 16S-23S intergenic spacer region, (iii) the gene coding for porins omp2a/omp2b, and (iv) the gene coding for the insertion sequence IS

resultsThe results obtained were as follows: (1) For the primers that amplify the gene coding for the BCSP31 protein: S: 45.64% (confidence interval [CI] 39.81-51.46), Sp: 95.62% (CI 93.13-98.12), and LR+: 10.43 (CI 6.04-18); (2) for the primers that amplify the ribosomal gene of the 16S-23S rDNA intergenic spacer region: S: 69.80% (CI 64.42-75.18), Sp: 95.62 % (CI 93.13-98.12), and LR+: 11.52 (CI 7.31-18.13); (3) for the primers that amplify the

conclusionWe concluded that the gene coding for the 16S-23S rDNA intergenic spacer region was the one that best detected

Indexed as

BrucellaBrucella caniscanine brucellosisclinical samplescomparisonmolecularpolymerase chain reaction

Identifiers

PMID29657404
PMCPMC5891875
OpenAlexW2793532309

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.