ArticleJournal of veterinary research2022
Comparison of Microscopy, Card Agglutination Test for
Article in Journal of veterinary research, 2022. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular Identification and Phylogenetic Analysis ofVeterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Iatrogenic transmission of Trypanosoma evansi infection in camels and its consequences.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A Flow Cytometry Study of the Binding and Stimulation Potential of InactivatedPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Molecular and hematological investigation of Trypanosoma evansi infection in Iranian one-humped camels (Camelus dromedarius).Parasitology research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Trypanosomosis is an important disease of dromedary camels caused by the pathogenic protozoan Material and Methods: Whole blood and serum samples collected from 77 dromedary camels of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, were analysed with the test methods stated. Statistical analysis was done using McNemar's chi-squared test, and Cohen's kappa index (κ) was calculated. Results: We obtained results with positivity of 18% (14/77) by microscopy, 22% by CATT (17/77) and 60% (46/77) by real-time PCR, with the chain reaction detecting at a respectively three- and two-fold greater rate than the other techniques. Analysis of the data revealed a relative sensitivity of 30.4% and 37.0% for microscopy and CATT, respectively, compared to real-time PCR. The difference between the real-time PCR's sensitivity and those of the other methods was statistically significant, with X Conclusion: Real-time PCR was found to be more sensitive than microscopy and CATT.
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.