ArticlePloS one2023
Are rapid tests and confirmatory western blot used for cattle and small ruminants TSEs reliable tools for the diagnosis of Chronic Wasting Disease in Europe?
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-Time Quaking-Induced Conversion Assay Applied to the Italian Chronic Wasting Disease Monitoring Plan: Comparison of Classical and Innovative Diagnostic Methods.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Transmission of Norwegian reindeer CWD to sheep by intracerebral inoculation results in an unusual phenotype and prion distribution.Veterinary research · 2024Article
- CWD as a New Health Threat in Europe and the Adequacy and Effectiveness of Instruments of Legal Response from a Comparative Legal Perspective.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first case of CWD in Europe was detected in a Norwegian reindeer in 2016, followed later by two CWD cases in Norwegian moose. To prevent the potential spread of CWD to the EU, the European Commission (Regulation EU 2017_1972) implemented a CWD surveillance programme in cervids in the six countries having reindeer and or moose (Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden). Each country had to test a minimum of 3000 cervids for CWD using diagnostic rapid tests approved by the EC Regulation. Experimental transmission studies in rodents have demonstrated that the CWD strains found in Norwegian reindeer are different from those found in moose and that these European strains are all different from the North American ones. Data on the performances of authorised rapid tests are limited for CWD (from North America) and are currently minimal for CWD from Europe, due to the paucity of positive material. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performances of three of the so-called "rapid" tests, commercially available and approved for TSE diagnosis in cattle and small ruminants, to detect the CWD strains circulating in Europe. The performances of these three tests were also compared to two different confirmatory western blot methods. Using parallel testing on the same panel of available samples, we evaluated here the analytical sensitivity of these methods for TSE diagnosis of CWD in Norwegian cervids tissues. Our results show that all the methods applied were able to detect the CWD positive samples even if differences in analytical sensitivity were clearly observed. Although this study could not assess the test accuracy, due to the small number of samples available, it is conceivable that the rapid and confirmatory diagnostic systems applied for CWD surveillance in Northern Europe are reliable tools.
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.