ArticleParasites & vectors2022
Validation of a commercial version of a competitive enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of antibodies to Besnoitia besnoiti.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral reports suggest a further spread of besnoitiosis to countries in which Besnoitia besnoiti-infected bovine herds have not been noticed yet. Cattle infected without clinical signs may represent reservoirs. Serological analyses in affected herds or animals from endemic regions are necessary to identify subclinical or inapparent infections and stop transmission to naïve animals or herds. The Monoscreen AbELISA Besnoitia besnoiti (BIO K 466) is based on a previously published in-house competitive ELISA, the Bb-cELISA1, but has a different test architecture. The present study aimed to use sera from a previous evaluation of Bb-cELISA1 to assess whether BIO K466 shows identical results. In addition, further well-characterized positive and negative samples were analysed to estimate diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.
methodsA first set of sera consisted of a total of 305 bovine sera, collected from German herds infected by B. besnoiti, Neospora caninum or Sarcocystis spp. Sera had been characterized by reference serological tests (i.e. immunoblot, immunofluorescence antibody test and an in-house indirect ELISA). A second set consisted of 200 confirmed B. besnoiti-positive sera from French herds. Negative cattle sera (n = 624) originated from Norway and The Netherlands, countries in which bovine besnoitiosis has not been reported yet.
resultsUsing the first set of sera, the BIO K466 showed an estimated diagnostic sensitivity of 97.9% (95% CI: 91.9%-99.6) and a diagnostic specificity of 99.5% (95% CI: 96.9%-100%) relative to reference serological tests. A direct comparison of the results revealed an almost perfect agreement between the results of the in-house Bb-cELISA1 and the commercialized version (kappa 0.98; 95% CI: 0.95-1). The validation using positive bovine sera from France and negative sera from other European countries revealed a diagnostic sensitivity of 97.5% (95% CI: 93.9%-99.1%) and specificity of 99.5% (95% CI: 98.5%-99.9%).
conclusionIn conclusion, BIO K 466 appears to be a suitable tool to diagnose bovine besnoitiosis, but needs further validation especially in cases of inconclusive, suspected false-positive or -negative results in other serological tests.
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.