Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35203150›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Variation in the Performance of Different Batches of Two

Heike Köhler, Annika Wichert, Karsten Donat

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Heike KöhlerInstitute of Molecular Pathogenesis, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute of Animal Health, Naumburger Strasse 96a, 07743 Jena, Germany.
Annika WichertThuringian Animal Diseases Fund, Victor-Goerttler-Strasse 4, 07745 Jena, Germany.
Karsten DonatThuringian Animal Diseases Fund, Victor-Goerttler-Strasse 4, 07745 Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5376-0116
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regionally, the monitoring of paratuberculosis at the herd level is performed by the detection of specific antibodies in pooled milk samples by ELISA. The negative/positive cut-off S/P values applied for pooled milk samples are low and particularly vulnerable to variation in the test performance. In this study, a batch variation in the test performance of two ELISA tests was assessed to identify consequences for sample classification. A total of 72 pooled milk samples (50 from MAP-infected herds, 22 from one MAP-non-infected herd) were analyzed using three different batches, each of two different MAP antibody ELISA tests (A and B). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed, with the results of each batch, S/P values of the samples and optical density (OD) readings of the negative and positive control samples included in the kits being compared between the batches of one test. ROC analysis revealed a considerable variation in the test performance of the batches of the two individual tests, caused by differences in the S/P values of the samples and resulting in different sensitivities at a specificity of 100%. Major sources of variation originate from the manufacturing processes of test batches. These sources have to be better controlled, and the test performance has to be revisited regularly.

Indexed as

batch differencesenzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP)pooled milk samplesreceiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysisS/P value

Identifiers

PMID35203150
PMCPMC8868366
OpenAlexW4212984330

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.