Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32005906›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Diagnostic Uncertainty and the Epidemiology of Feline Foamy Virus in Pumas (Puma concolor).

Nicholas G Dannemiller, Sarah Kechejian, Simona Kraberger, Kenneth Logan, Mathew Alldredge, Kevin R Crooks, Sue VandeWoude, Scott Carver

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicholas G DannemillerDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. dannemillern@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3429-1881
Sarah KechejianDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Simona KrabergerDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Kenneth LoganColorado Parks and Wildlife, Montrose, Colorado, USA.
Mathew AlldredgeColorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Kevin R CrooksDepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Sue VandeWoudeDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9227-1622
Scott CarverSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3579-7588
Colorado State University · USColorado Parks and Wildlife · USUniversity of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

SpumavirusAnimalsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleLatent Class AnalysisMalePolymerase Chain ReactionPrevalencePumaReproducibility of ResultsRetroviridae InfectionsRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID32005906
PMCPMC6994588
OpenAlexW3003662868

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.