ArticleTropical animal health and production2023
Evaluation of serological diagnostic tests for bovine brucellosis in dairy cattle herds in an endemic area: a multicenter study.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Socio-economic impact of bovine brucellosis and the need for effective control strategies.Veterinary research communications · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Performance of Four Serological Assays for Bovine Brucellosis and Optimised Cutoff Thresholds in an Endemic Region of Iran.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
- Specific detection of Brucella spp. from slaughter-aged livestock using a dual priming oligonucleotide system.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Long-Term Antibody Titers in Calves Treated with Different Conjunctival and SubcutaneousAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- OASIS evaluation of the French laboratory diagnostic surveillance system: right people, right techniques but imperfect use.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Assessment of immune responses toFrontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Investigation of the Seroprevalence of Brucella Antibodies and Characterization of Field Strains in Immunized Dairy Cows byVeterinary sciences · 2024Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of bovine brucellosis seroprevalence in Latin America and the Caribbean.New microbes and new infections · 2023Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Brucellosis is known as one of the most common zoonotic diseases worldwide affecting both livestock and humans. It causes abortions, reduces milk production, and infertility in infected animals. The disease is routinely diagnosed through three serological techniques, such as rose bengal plate test (RBPT), standard agglutination test (SAT), and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (I-ELISA). The aim of this study was to identify and compare the brucellosis seroprevalence among dairy cattle farms through these different serological tests. From 2112 sampled dairy cattle in different parts of Iran, RBPT, SAT, and I-ELISA led to 296 (14.02%), 215 (10.18%), and 297 (14.06%) positive results, respectively. Brucella abortus biovar 3 (62 cases) was identified as the most common cause of brucellosis in tested animals. Our results showed that the specificity and sensitivity of I-ELISA were higher than those obtained by RBPT and SAT. In this study, the overall agreement of RBPT and SAT with I-ELISA reached 95.21% and 94.12% in dairy cattle farms, respectively. Furthermore, Cohen's kappa statistical analysis revealed that the best degree of agreement was seen between RBPT and I-ELISA (0.80), followed by RBPT and SAT (0.78) and finally SAT and I-ELISA (0.72), thereby indicating a strong agreement between RBPT and I-ELISA methods and good agreement between SAT and I-ELISA methods. The McNemar analysis also showed that a significant difference exists between positive and negative results determined by SAT and I-ELISA methods (p < 0.0001). However, the positive and negative results determined by I-ELISA and RBPT did not show a significant difference (p = 0.9207). Therefore, I-ELISA was a more specific and sensitive serological test when compared to RBPT and SAT and could remarkably decrease non-specific reaction by improving the serological screening specificity for an accurate brucellosis diagnosis in endemic areas.
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.