Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30866933›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

A European interlaboratory trial to evaluate the performance of different PCR methods for Mycoplasma bovis diagnosis.

Henk J Wisselink, Bregtje Smid, Jane Plater, Anne Ridley, Anna-Maria Andersson, Anna Aspán, Tarja Pohjanvirta, Nella Vähänikkilä, Helene Larsen, Jonas Høgberg and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Direct and Rapid Detection ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  11. MonitoringPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Henk J WisselinkWageningen Bioveterinary Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands. henk.wisselink@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3747-8054
Bregtje SmidWageningen Bioveterinary Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Jane PlaterAnimal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Surrey, UK.
Anne RidleyAnimal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Surrey, UK.
Anna-Maria AnderssonNational Veterinary Institute (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden.
Anna AspánNational Veterinary Institute (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden.
Tarja PohjanvirtaFinnish Food Safety Authority Evira, Kuopio, Finland.
Nella VähänikkiläFinnish Food Safety Authority Evira, Kuopio, Finland.
Helene LarsenNational Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Jonas HøgbergNational Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Adélie ColinAnses, Lyon Laboratory, JRU Ruminants Mycoplasmoses, Anses, VetAgro Sup, University of Lyon, Lyon, France.
Florence TardyAnses, Lyon Laboratory, JRU Ruminants Mycoplasmoses, Anses, VetAgro Sup, University of Lyon, Lyon, France.
Animal and Plant Health Agency · GBFinnish Food Authority · FISwedish Veterinary Agency · SETechnical University of Denmark · DKUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidCattleCattle DiseasesEuropeMycoplasma agalactiaeMycoplasma bovisMycoplasma InfectionsPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityBovine respiratory diseaseBronchoalveolar lavage fluidCultureEnd-point PCRMycoplasma bovisReal-time PCRRing trial

Identifiers

PMID30866933
PMCPMC6417145
OpenAlexW2939869177

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.