Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31653217›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

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.

Anna-Maria Andersson, Anna Aspán, Henk J Wisselink, Bregtje Smid, Anne Ridley, Sinikka Pelkonen, Tiina Autio, Klara Tølbøll Lauritsen, Jane Kensø, Patrice Gaurivaud and 1 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
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Development of the novel Pictor PictVet™Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Field Experience of Antibody Testing againstPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  14. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Anna-Maria AnderssonNational Veterinary Institute (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden.
Anna AspánNational Veterinary Institute (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden.
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.
Anne RidleyAnimal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Surrey, UK.
Sinikka PelkonenFinnish Food Authority, Kuopio, Finland.
Tiina AutioFinnish Food Authority, Kuopio, Finland.
Klara Tølbøll LauritsenNational Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark.
Jane KensøNational Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark.
Patrice GaurivaudUniversité de Lyon, Anses, Laboratoire de Lyon, UMR Mycoplasmoses des ruminants, Lyon, France.
Florence TardyUniversité de Lyon, Anses, Laboratoire de Lyon, UMR Mycoplasmoses des ruminants, Lyon, France.
Finnish Food Authority · FISwedish Veterinary Agency · SETechnical University of Denmark · DKUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRWageningen University & Research · NLAnimal and Plant Health Agency · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMycoplasma bovis (M. bovis) is an emerging bovine pathogen, leading to significant economic losses in the livestock industry worldwide. Infection can result in a variety of clinical signs, such as arthritis, pneumonia, mastitis and keratoconjunctivitis, none of which are M. bovis-specific. Laboratory diagnosis is therefore important. Serological tests to detect M. bovis antibodies is considered an effective indicator of infection in a herd and often used as a herd test. Combined with clinical judgement, it can also be used to implement control strategies and/or to estimate the disease prevalence within a country. However, due to lack of harmonisation of approaches to testing, and serological tests used by different laboratories, comparisons of prevalence data between countries is often difficult. A network of researchers from six European countries designed and participated in an inter-laboratory trial, with the aim of evaluating the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of two commercially available ELISA tests (ID Screen® ELISA (IDvet) and BIO K302 ELISA (BIO-X Diagnostics)) for diagnosis of M. bovis infection. Each laboratory received a blinded panel of bovine sera and tested independently, according to manufacturer's instructions. Western blot analyses (WB) performed by one of the participating laboratories was used as a third diagnostic test in the statistical evaluation of Se and Sp values using latent class analysis.

resultsThe Se of WB, the ID Screen® ELISA and the BIO K302 ELISA were determined to be 91.8, 93.5 and 49.1% respectively, and corresponding Sp of the three tests were 99.6, 98.6 and 89.6%, respectively.

conclusionsThe present study is, to our knowledge, the first to present an inter-laboratory comparison of the BIO K302 ELISA and the ID Screen® ELISA. Based on our results, the ID Screen® ELISA showed high consistency with WB and performed with higher precision and accuracy than the BIO K302 ELISA.

Indexed as

AnimalsBlotting, WesternCattleCattle DiseasesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayLatent Class AnalysisMycoplasma bovisMycoplasma InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificitySerologic TestsELISAInter-laboratory trialLatent class analysisMycoplasma bovis cattleWestern blot

Identifiers

PMID31653217
PMCPMC6814985
OpenAlexW2981637045

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.