ArticleScientific reports2020
Diagnostic Uncertainty and the Epidemiology of Feline Foamy Virus in Pumas (Puma concolor).
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feline Foamy Virus Transmission in Tsushima Leopard CatsViruses · 2023Article
- Article
- Seroprevalence of Feline Foamy Virus in Domestic Cats in Poland.Journal of veterinary research · 2021Article
- Species, sex and geographic variation in chlamydial prevalence in abundant wild Australian parrots.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Feline foamy virus (FFV) is a contact-dependent retrovirus forming chronic, largely apathogenic, infections in domestic and wild felid populations worldwide. Given there is no current 'gold standard' diagnostic test for FFV, efforts to elucidate the ecology and epidemiology of the virus may be complicated by unknown sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests. Using Bayesian Latent Class Analysis, we estimated the sensitivity and specificity of the only two FFV diagnostic tests available-ELISA and qPCR-as well as the prevalence of FFV in a large cohort of pumas from Colorado. We evaluated the diagnostic agreement of ELISA and qPCR, and whether differences in their diagnostic accuracy impacted risk factor analyses for FFV infection. Our results suggest ELISA and qPCR did not have strong diagnostic agreement, despite FFV causing a persistent infection. While both tests had similar sensitivity, ELISA had higher specificity. ELISA, but not qPCR, identified age to be a significant risk factor, whereas neither qPCR nor ELISA identified sex to be a risk factor. This suggests FFV transmission in pumas may primarily be via non-antagonistic, social interactions between adult conspecifics. Our study highlights that combined use of qPCR and ELISA for FFV may enhance estimates of the true prevalence of FFV and epidemiological inferences.
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.