Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30823881›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

Specificity of serological test for detection of tuberculosis in cattle, goats, sheep and pigs under different epidemiological situations.

J A Infantes-Lorenzo, I Moreno, A Roy, M A Risalde, A Balseiro, L de Juan, B Romero, J Bezos, E Puentes, J Åkerstedt and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Evaluation of P22 ELISA for the Detection ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Veterinary world · 2020
    Review
  16. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

J A Infantes-LorenzoVISAVET Health Surveillance Centre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
I MorenoUnidad de Inmunología Microbiana, Centro Nacional de Microbiología, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
A RoyCZ Veterinaria S.A., Porriño, Pontevedra, Spain.
M A RisaldeSaBio (Health and Biotechnology), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos IREC (CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Ciudad Real, Spain.
A BalseiroSERIDA, Servicio Regional de Investigación y Desarrollo Agroalimentario, Centro de Biotecnología Animal, Deva-Gijón, Asturias, Spain.
L de JuanVISAVET Health Surveillance Centre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
B RomeroVISAVET Health Surveillance Centre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
J BezosVISAVET Health Surveillance Centre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
E PuentesCZ Veterinaria S.A., Porriño, Pontevedra, Spain.
J ÅkerstedtNorwegian Veterinary Institute, Sentrum, Oslo, Norway.
G T TessemaNorwegian Veterinary Institute, Sentrum, Oslo, Norway.
C GortázarSaBio (Health and Biotechnology), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos IREC (CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Ciudad Real, Spain. Christian.Gortazar@uclm.es.
L DomínguezVISAVET Health Surveillance Centre, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
M DomínguezUnidad de Inmunología Microbiana, Centro Nacional de Microbiología, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
Universidad Complutense de Madrid · ESInstituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos · ESNorwegian Veterinary Institute · NOCentro Nacional de Microbiologia · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESServicio Regional de Investigación y Desarrollo Agroalimentario · ES

Funding

Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria RTA2015-00043-C02-02Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España CGL2017-89866Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España DI-15-08110Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España IJCI-2015-24805Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte FPU2013/6000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSerum antibody detection has potential as a complementary diagnostic tool in animal tuberculosis (TB) control, particularly in multi-host systems. The objective of the present study was to assess the specificity (Sp) of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) based on the new multiprotein complex P22 for the detection of specific antibodies against the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTC) in the four most relevant domestic animals acting as MTC hosts: cattle, goat, sheep and pig. We used sera from an officially TB-free (OTF) country, Norway, and from a non-OTF one, Spain. The samples included sera from goats that had been vaccinated against M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP) and sheep from a herd in which Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis had been isolated.

resultsIn cattle, the Sp ranged from 92.5 (IC95% 90.7-94) to 99.4% (IC95% 98.3-99.8) depending on the cut-off used and the origin of the samples (Spain or Norway). Sp in cattle (cut-off point 100) was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for Norwegian samples. By contrast, Sp in goats was consistently low at the 100 cut-off [30.9 (CI95%23.4-39.5)-78% (CI95% 68.9-85)]. A higher cut-off of 150 improved Sp in Norwegian goats [97% (CI95% 91.6-99)], but still yielded a poor Sp of 56.1% (CI95% 47.3-64.6) in Spanish goats. In Norway at the 100 cut-off the Sp was 58.3 (CI95% 42.2-72.9) and 90.6% (CI95% 81-95.6) in MAP vaccinated and non-vaccinated goats, respectively, indicating interference due to MAP vaccination. Sp in sheep was between 94.4 (CI95% 91.7-96.3) and 100% (CI95% 96.3-100) depending on the cut-off and country, and no diagnostic interference due to infection with C. pseudotuberculosis was recorded. Sp in pigs was 100%, regardless the cut-off point applied, and no significant differences were observed between pigs from Norway and from Spain.

conclusionsDue to its excellent Sp in pigs and acceptable Sp in cattle and sheep, this ELISA may constitute a suitable option for TB screening at herd level, particularly in OTF-countries.

Indexed as

Animal DiseasesAnimalsCattleCorynebacterium pseudotuberculosisEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayGoatsMycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosisMycobacterium tuberculosisNorwaySensitivity and SpecificitySeroepidemiologic StudiesSheepSpainSwineTuberculosisAnimal tuberculosisCattleGoatP22PigSerum antibodiesSheep

Identifiers

PMID30823881
PMCPMC6397464
OpenAlexW2924162159

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.