ArticleTropical animal health and production2021
Use of pooled serum samples to assess herd disease status using commercially available ELISAs.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Prevalence and risk factors for avian influenza virus (H5 and H9) contamination in peri-urban and rural live bird markets in Bangladesh.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Switzerland-wideFrontiers in veterinary science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pooled samples are used in veterinary and human medicine as a cost-effective approach to monitor disease prevalence. Nonetheless, there is limited information on the effect of pooling on test performance, and research is required to determine the appropriate number of samples which can be pooled. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the use of pooled serum samples as a herd-level surveillance tool for infectious production-limiting diseases: bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), enzootic bovine leukosis (EBL) and Neospora caninum (NC), by investigating the maximum number of samples one can pool to identify one positive animal, using commercial antibody-detection ELISAs. Four positive field standards (PFS), one for each disease, were prepared by pooling highly positive herd-level samples diagnosed using commercially available ELISA tests. These PFS were used to simulate 18 pooled samples ranging from undiluted PFS to a dilution representing 1 positive in 1,000 animals using phosphate-buffered saline as diluent. A 1:10 dilution of the PFS resulted in positive results for IBR, BVD and EBL. Moreover, for IBR and BVD, results were still positive at 1:100 and 1:30 dilutions, respectively. However, for NC, a lower dilution (8:10) was required for a seropositive result. This study indicates that, at herd-level, the use of pooled serum is a useful strategy for monitoring infectious diseases (BVD, IBR and EBL) but not NC, using readily available diagnostic assays.
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.