ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021
Prevalence and Demographic Risk Factors of
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current perspectives on avian tuberculosis in domestic and wild birds: Molecular diagnostics, genomic surveillance, and vaccination challenges.Open veterinary journal · 2026Review
- Seroprevalence of tuberculosis and hematological variations in captive and orphaned wild elephants (Elephas maximus maximus) in Sri Lanka.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Bacteriophages of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, their diversity, and potential therapeutic uses: a review.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Review
- Isolation, Characterization, and Drug Sensitivity ofFrontiers 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To address putative TB statuses of elephants and to identify and quantify potential demographic risk factors for TB, three ELISAs specific for different mycobacterial antigens (ESAT6, CFP10, MPB83) and the TB Stat-Pak assay were used as surrogate serological markers for TB infection in elephants. In view of the low number of animals of which the infected status could be confirmed (4 out of 708) Latent Class Analyses of TB serology test outcomes was used to predict the putative TB status of each of 708 elephants as positive (17.3%), inconclusive (48.7%), or negative (34%) when assessed on a population basis. Correlation between test performance of the individual assays was high between the ELISAs, but low with that of the TB Stat-Pak assay. Risk factors, assessed based on cut off values for each of the ELISAs determined by ROC analysis, included sex, BCS, age, working time, feed type, management system, camp size and region. Old age elephants were more likely to show a positive TB serology test outcome, than younger ones. Elephants working 7 h per day and the ones in good condition BCS (7-11) were less likely to be positive in TB serology testing. In addition, fewer animals in the large camp size (31-50 elephants) were found to be positive in ELISA tests, compared to elephants in the other camp sizes. In this study, the North region had the lowest percentages of elephants with positive TB test outcome, the West region and to a lesser extend the other regions showed clearly higher percentages of positive animals. Even though assays used in the present study have not been validated yet, results obtained showed promise as diagnostic or screening tests. For the diagnosis of animals suspected to be infected, the ELISA tests, once further optimized for the individual antigens, can be used in parallel. For screening of complete camps for presence or absence of infection, a single optimized ELISA test can be utilized.
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.