Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37563597›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2023

Comparative evaluation of RBPT, I-ELISA, and CFT for the diagnosis of brucellosis and PCR detection of Brucella species from Ethiopian sheep, goats, and cattle sera.

Abinet Legesse, Aregitu Mekuriaw, Esayas Gelaye, Takele Abayneh, Belayneh Getachew, Wubet Weldemedhin, Takele Tesgera, Getaw Deresse, Kenaw Birhanu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abinet LegesseResearch and Development Directorate, National Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 19, Bishoftu, Ethiopia. abinetl781@gmail.com.
Aregitu MekuriawResearch and Development Directorate, National Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 19, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Esayas GelayeFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Sub-Regional Office for Eastern Africa, P.O. Box 5536, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Takele AbaynehResearch and Development Directorate, National Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 19, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Belayneh GetachewResearch and Development Directorate, National Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 19, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Wubet WeldemedhinResearch and Development Directorate, National Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 19, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Takele TesgeraResearch and Development Directorate, National Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 19, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Getaw DeresseResearch and Development Directorate, National Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 19, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Kenaw BirhanuResearch and Development Directorate, National Veterinary Institute, P.O. Box 19, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
National Veterinary Institute · ETUnited Nations Economic Commission for Africa · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrucellosis is an economically devastating animal disease and has public health concern. Serological methods such as Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT), Complement Fixation Test (CFT), and Indirect-Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (I-ELISA) have been used to detect brucellosis. However, there is limited comparative evaluation studies and lack of molecular confirmation of the causative agents in the study areas. The study was aimed to compare RBPT, I-ELISA, CFT, and confirmation using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). A total of 2317 sera samples were collected from brucellosis-affected areas of Ethiopia with no vaccination history. All sera were subjected to comparative serological assays. Post-cross tabulation, sensitivity, and specificity were determined using Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve analysis software. PCR was performed on 54 seropositive samples using genus- and species-specific primers.

resultsAmong the 2317 sera tested for comparative serological assays, 189 (8.16%) were positive for RBPT, 191 (8.24%) for I-ELISA, and 48 (2.07%) for CFT. Sensitivity to RBPT was 100% (95%) in shoats and 74% (95%) in cattle. Specificity on RBPT was 98.69% (95%), 99.28% (95%), 100% (95%) in sheep, goats, and cattle, respectively. CFT sensitivity was 4 (95%) in sheep, 9.65 (95%) goats, and 72 (95%) cattle. Specificity on CFT was 100% (95%) for sheep, goats, and cattle. A 223bp Brucella genus-specific and 156bp B. abortus species-specific detected. However, B. melitensis not detected.

conclusionIn this study, I-ELISA was the most sensitive and specific test. RBPT detected all Brucellosis-infected sheep and goats; nevertheless, it showed false positive in sheep and goats and false negative in cattle. The presence of B. abortus in small and large ruminants was confirmed by PCR. This is the first report of B. abortus detection in small ruminant in Ethiopia. B.abortus detected in non-preferred hosts. The findings suggest further study on molecular epidemiology of Brucella species.

Indexed as

BrucellaBrucellosisAnimalsAntibodies, BacterialCattleComplement Fixation TestsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayGoatsPolymerase Chain ReactionRose BengalSheepAntibodies, BacterialRose BengalBrucella speciesCFTDiagnosisI-ELISAPCRRBPT

Identifiers

PMID37563597
PMCPMC10413706
OpenAlexW4385723928

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.