ArticleOpen veterinary journal2023
Comparative evaluation of some techniques used for the detection of rabies virus.
Article in Open veterinary journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracellular Expression and Diagnostic Potential of Dengue Virus Type 3 E Protein Domain III Through Codon Optimization in Komagataella phaffii.Molecular biotechnology · 2026Article
- Emerging Approaches for Mitigating Biofilm-Formation-Associated Infections in Farm, Wild, and Companion Animals.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neurotropic viruses in the family Rhabdoviridae, genus Aim: Evaluation of the used diagnostic techniques to determine the most simple; rapid and accurate test for rabies virus (RABV) recognition in different specimens aiming to reach a rapid diagnosis as a step aid in the disease control and to prevent or even minimize the suspected hazard. Method: The used techniques included an infection trial of Swiss mice with the mice-adapted challenge rabies virus followed by the detection of the virus in the infected mices' brains. Virus detection was carried out through the application BHK21 cell line infection; fluorescent antibody technique; latex agglutination test (LAT); direct enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); rabies antigen detection kit ELISA; conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Results: It was found that virus inoculation in mice and BHK21 cell lines needs 5-7 days with positivity of 90% and 100%, respectively. Rapid antigen kit was able to detect rabies antigen in mice brains suspension and BHK21 infected fluid within 3-5 minutes with percentages of 60% and 55.5%, respectively. In 1-1.5 hours, the direct fluorescent antibody method (DFAT) detected 90% and 100% of the rabies antigen in BHK21 cell line infection and brain impressions, respectively. Latex agglutination showed clear results with 88.8% with BHK21 infected fluid within 3-5 minutes while it did not carry out on brain emulsions to prevent falsely positive results brought on by the presence of tissue fragments. Conventional one-step PCR revealed 100% positivity with either brain or cell culture preparations within 2 days. Direct ELISA showed 88.8% positivity with BHK21 infected fluid with 1 day of work. Conclusion: Mice inoculation test, cell culture infection; DFAT and PCR are the most accurate techniques for the detection of RABV with a positivity of 90%-100% followed by LAT and ELISA with a positivity of 88.8%, and lastly, rabies antigen ELISA kit (RAK) with a positivity of 55.5%-60% taking in consideration the required time for each. In addition, the positivity % of the applied tests revealed their sensitivity and specificity.
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.