ArticleBMC veterinary research2018
Diagnostic tools of caprine and ovine anaplasmosis: a direct comparative study.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular and serological detection of Anaplasma marginale indicates widespread exposure among crossbred cattle in Karnal (Haryana), India.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of a lateral flow assay for detecting Anaplasma marginale infection in cattle.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Molecular Characterization and Prevalence of Anaplasma ovis and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Goat Population in Siirt Province From Türkiye.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
- Tick-borne pathogens in meat sheep from Brazil: first report of Theileria ovis in sheep in latin America.Parasitology research · 2026Article
- Seroprevalence and Risk Factor for Canine Tick-Borne Disease in Urban-Rural Area in Ayacucho, Peru.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Emergence of NovelAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Anaplasmosis in the Amazon: diagnostic challenges, persistence, and control ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Molecular detection of piroplasms,Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- What is the value of testing for tick-borne diseases in cattle in endemic areas? A case study of bovine anaplasmosis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Molecular epidemiology of anaplasmosis in Indian dromedary camels.Veterinary research communications · 2024Article
- Molecular and haematological investigations on Anaplasma ovis infection in goats in Ahvaz, Iran: Insights into infection rate, haemolytic effect and breed influences.Veterinary medicine and science · 2024Article
- Molecular prevalence and associated infection risk factors of tick-borne protozoan and rickettsial blood pathogens in small ruminants.BMC veterinary research · 2023Article
- Co-exposure to Anaplasma spp., Coxiella burnetii and tick-borne encephalitis virus in sheep in southern Germany.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Natural Co-Exposure toLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Molecular Survey and Genetic Characterization ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Evaluation of an Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay for the Detection ofMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Multiple blood pathogen infections in apparently healthy sheltered dogs in southern Thailand.International journal of veterinary science and medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Seroprevalence and Risk Factors ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of anaplasmosis is rather conflicting with other haemoprotozoans. Hence, the study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficiency of competitive ELISA (cELISA), indirect fluorescence antibody (IFA), and Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for precise diagnosis of Anaplasma spp. and to assess their concordance with microscopic examination (ME).
resultsA total of 312 blood samples (189 sheep and 123 goats) were examined for Anaplasma infection during a 1 year period. Giemsa-stained blood smears were examined under the microscope. IFA and cELISA were used for the detection of Anaplasma spp. antibodies. PCR was used as a standard of truth and for the identification of Anaplasma species. Using cELISA assay, 47.4% (148) were positive (93 sheep and 55 goats) with a sensitivity and specificity of 91.9, and 86.9%, respectively. Using IFA, it was found that 57.4% (179)were positive (113 sheep and 66 goats) with a sensitivity and specificity of 100, and 93.3%, respectively. PCR assay identified A. ovis in 49 (25.3%) sheep and 30 (15.5%) goats, and A. phagocytophilumin 74 (38.1%) sheep and 41 (20.8%) goats.
conclusionsHigh sensitivity and specificity values of IFA and ELISA tests compared to microscopic examination strongly support their utility in the diagnosis of Anaplasma infection. PCR was a more specific diagnostic tool that allows to discriminate between Anaplasma subspecies, which makes it the method of choice for anaplasmosis diagnosis.
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.