Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38023275›Full record

ArticleVeterinary world2023

Comparison of diagnostic tests for detecting bovine brucellosis in animals vaccinated with S19 and RB51 strain vaccines.

Marcelo Ibarra, Martin Campos, Benavides Hernán, Anthony Loor-Giler, Andrea Chamorro, Luis Nuñez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary world, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcelo IbarraFacultad de Industrias Agropecuarias y Ciencias Ambientales, Carrera Agropecuaria, Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi, Antisana S/N y Av Universitaria, Tulcán Ecuador 040102.
Martin CamposFacultad de Industrias Agropecuarias y Ciencias Ambientales, Carrera Agropecuaria, Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi, Antisana S/N y Av Universitaria, Tulcán Ecuador 040102.
Benavides HernánFacultad de Industrias Agropecuarias y Ciencias Ambientales, Carrera Agropecuaria, Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi, Antisana S/N y Av Universitaria, Tulcán Ecuador 040102.
Anthony Loor-GilerFacultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Aplicadas, Carrera de Ingeniería en Biotecnología, Universidad de Las Américas, Antigua Vía a Nayón S/N, Quito EC 170124 Ecuador.
Andrea ChamorroFacultad de Industrias Agropecuarias y Ciencias Ambientales, Carrera de Enfermeria, Universidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi, Antisana S/N y Av Universitaria, Tulcán Ecuador 040102.
Luis NuñezFacultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Carrera de Medicina Veterinaria, Universidad de Las Américas, Antigua Vía a Nayón S/N, Quito EC 170124 Ecuador.
National University of Rosario · ARUniversidad de Las Américas · ECUniversidad Politécnica Estatal del Carchi · EC

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aim: The diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in animals vaccinated with strain-19 (S19) and Rose Bengal (RB)-51 strain vaccines can be misinterpreted due to false positives. This study aimed to compare diagnostic tests for detecting bovine brucellosis in animals vaccinated with S19 and RB51 vaccine strains. Materials and Methods: Two groups of 12 crossbred Holstein calves between 6 and 8 months of age were used. On day 0, blood samples were collected from the animals, and the competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used for serological diagnosis of bovine Brucellosis. All animals tested negative. After the first blood collection, the animals were subcutaneously vaccinated: one group received the S19 vaccine and the other received the RB51 vaccine. From the 3 Results: Animals vaccinated with S19 showed positive results with the RB, SAT, and SAT-2Me tests in all months of post-vaccination diagnosis. In animals vaccinated with S19, FPA showed positive results at months 3 and 5 and negative results at month 7, indicating that this test discriminates vaccinated animals from infected animals 7 months after vaccination. Rose Bengal, SAT, SAT-2Me, and FPA tests showed negative results in animals vaccinated with RB51 in all months of diagnosis. Conclusion: Animals vaccinated with S19 may test positive for brucellosis using RB, SAT, or SAT-2Me tests 7 months later. Fluorescence polarization assay is an optimal alternative for diagnosing animals in the field, thereby preventing false positives, and consequently, unnecessary confiscations of animals. Animals vaccinated with RB51 tested negative with RB, SAT, SAT-2Me, and FPA tests in all months of diagnosis, confirming that the tests are ineffective for diagnosing brucellosis caused by rough strains.

Indexed as

agglutinationbovinebrucellosisvaccination

Identifiers

PMID38023275
PMCPMC10668559
OpenAlexW4387654386

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.