Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34723329›Full record

ArticleJournal of insect science (Online)2021

Validation of Diagnostic Methods for European Foulbrood on Commercial Honey Bee Colonies in the United States.

Meghan O'Grady Milbrath, Peter Daniel Fowler, Samuel K Abban, Dawn Lopez, Jay D Evans

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of insect science (Online), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. IPM Strategy to Control EFB inVeterinary sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Frontiers in effective control of problem parasites in beekeeping.International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Meghan O'Grady MilbrathDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, 4090 N. College Road, Pollinator Performance Center, RM 100, Lansing, MI 48910, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7726-5854
Peter Daniel FowlerDepartment of Comparative Medicine and Integrative Biology, Veterinary Medical Center, Michigan State University, 784 Wilson Road, Room G100, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4369-6007
Samuel K AbbanBee Research Laboratory, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, B306 BARC-East Beltsville, MD 20705, USA.
Dawn LopezBee Research Laboratory, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, B306 BARC-East Beltsville, MD 20705, USA.
Jay D EvansBee Research Laboratory, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, B306 BARC-East Beltsville, MD 20705, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0036-4651

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most serious bacterial pathogens of Western honey bees (Apis mellifera Linnaeus [Hymenoptera: Apidae]) is Melissococcus plutonius, the cause of the disease European foulbrood. Because European foulbrood is highly variable, with diverse outcomes at both the individual and colony levels, it is difficult to diagnose through visual inspection alone. Common lab diagnostic techniques include microscopic examination and molecular detection through PCR. In 2009, a lateral flow device was developed and validated for field diagnosis of European foulbrood. At the time, M. plutonius was thought to be genetically homogenous, but we have subsequently learned that this bacterium exists as multiple strains, including some strains that are classified as 'atypical' for which the lateral flow device is potentially less effective. These devices are increasingly used in the United States, though they have never been validated using strains from North America. It is essential to validate this device in multiple locations as different strains of M. plutonius circulate in different geographical regions. In this study, we validate the field use of the lateral flow device compared to microscopic examination and qPCR on larval samples from 78 commercial honey bee colonies in the United States with visual signs of infection. In this study, microscopic diagnosis was more sensitive than the lateral flow device (sensitivity = 97.40% and 89.47%, respectively), and we found no false positive results with the lateral flow device. We find high concurrence between the three diagnostic techniques, and all three methods are highly sensitive for diagnosing European foulbrood.

Indexed as

EnterococcaceaeAnimalsBacterial InfectionsBeesReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionUnited StatesdiagnosticsEuropean foulbroodhoney beelateral flow device

Identifiers

PMID34723329
PMCPMC8559156

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.