ArticleVeterinary world2020
Serological evaluation for the current epidemic situation of foot and mouth disease among cattle and buffaloes in Egypt.
Article in Veterinary world, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitivity of specimen type for diagnosing foot-and-mouth diseases in cattle using one-step real-time polymerase chain reaction (3D gene).Open veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Detection of antibodies against structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus in bovines of western Uttar Pradesh, India.Veterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2024Article
- Perspective vaccines for emerging viral diseases in farm animals.Clinical and experimental vaccine research · 2023Review
- Detection of foot-and-mouth disease virus in raw milk in Menofia Governorate and its effect on reproductive hormones and physiochemical properties of milk.Veterinary world · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe present study was aimed to investigate the epidemic situation of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in Egypt from 2016 to 2018 based on the detection of FMD virus (FMDV) in carrier or previously infected animals, by determination of antibodies against non-structural protein (NSP), implementation a pilot study on circulating FMDV serotypes and assure the efficacy of locally produced inactivated trivalent vaccine. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 1500 sera were collected from apparent healthy vaccinated cattle and buffaloes from three Egyptian geographical sectors, representing ten governorates. Determination of FMD antibodies against NSP was carried out using 3ABC enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test. Serotyping of the circulating FMDV and assure the vaccine efficacy was performed using solid-phase competitive ELISA.
resultsThe 3ABC ELISA test revealed 26.4% and 23.7% positive for FMDV-NSP antibodies in cattle and buffalo sera, respectively. The highest positivity was in Delta Sector among both cattle 42.3% and buffaloes 28.8%. Serotyping of FMDV-positive NSP sera in El-Qalyubia Governorate for the circulating FMDV serotypes O, A, and Southern African Territories (SAT) 2 was 52.2%, 17.4%, and 30.4% in cattle and 31.8%, 27.3%, and 40.9% in buffaloes, respectively. The overall protection level due to the vaccination program was 62.1 and 60.9% in cattle and buffaloes, respectively, while the protective level of the FMDV serotypes O, A, and SAT2 included in the inactivated trivalent vaccine was 73.9, 84.6, and 63.8% in cattle and 72.3, 82.3, and 63.5% in buffaloes, respectively.
conclusionThe present study recommended full determination for the immunogenic relationship between the vaccine strains and the field strains to attain maximum protection against the circulating viruses.
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.