ArticleBMC veterinary research2019
A European interlaboratory trial to evaluate the performance of different PCR methods for Mycoplasma bovis diagnosis.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bovine Respiratory Mycoplasmas and the Commensal-Pathogen Continuum: A Systematic Review of Vaccines and Diagnostic Approaches.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Molecular detection of antimicrobial resistance in livestock mycoplasmas: current status and future prospects.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Genomic analysis of the 2017 Aotearoa New Zealand outbreak ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of DNA extraction procedures for detection of Mycoplasma bovis directly from extended bovine semen straw samples using a commercial M. bovis PCR.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Marine bacteriophages disturb the associated microbiota ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Point-of-care potentials of lateral flow-based field screening forBiology methods & protocols · 2024Review
- Evaluation of Nanopore Sequencing as a Diagnostic Tool for the Rapid Identification of Mycoplasma bovis from Individual and Pooled Respiratory Tract Samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021Article
- Direct and Rapid Detection ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Suitability of Nasal and Deep Nasopharyngeal Swab Sampling of Calves in theFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- Review
- MonitoringPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Rapid Identification of Mycoplasma bovis Strains from Bovine Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid with Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry after Enrichment Procedure.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2020Article
- The presence of Mycoplasma bovis in colostrum.Veterinary research · 2020Article
- A European inter-laboratory trial to evaluate the performance of three serological methods for diagnosis of Mycoplasma bovis infection in cattle using latent class analysis.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral species-specific PCR assays, based on a variety of target genes are currently used in the diagnosis of Mycoplasma bovis infections in cattle herds with respiratory diseases and/or mastitis. With this diversity of methods, and the development of new methods and formats, regular performance comparisons are required to ascertain diagnostic quality. The present study compares PCR methods that are currently used in six national veterinary institutes across Europe. Three different sample panels were compiled and analysed to assess the analytical specificity, analytical sensitivity and comparability of the different PCR methods. The results were also compared, when appropriate, to those obtained through isolation by culture. The sensitivity and comparability panels were composed of samples from bronchoalveolar fluids of veal calves, artificially contaminated or naturally infected, and hence the comparison of the different methods included the whole workflow from DNA extraction to PCR analysis.
resultsThe participating laboratories used i) five different DNA extraction methods, ii) seven different real-time and/or end-point PCRs targeting four different genes and iii) six different real-time PCR platforms. Only one commercial kit was assessed; all other PCR assays were in-house tests adapted from published methods. The analytical specificity of the different PCR methods was comparable except for one laboratory where Mycoplasma agalactiae was tested positive. Frequently, weak-positive results with Ct values between 37 and 40 were obtained for non-target Mycoplasma strains. The limit of detection (LOD) varied from 10 to 10
conclusionWith a few exceptions, all methods used routinely in the participating laboratories showed comparable performance, which assures the quality of diagnosis, despite the multiplicity of the methods.
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.