ArticleScientific reports2024
Assessing the impact of various tuberculin PPD brands on bovine tuberculosis diagnosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of an ESAT-6 Recombinant Skin Test Reagent for Bovine Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Guinea Pigs and Cattle.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of a formaldehyde-stabilized tuberculin as a safe and potent alternative to phenol-based purified protein derivative for the diagnosis of animal tuberculosis.Veterinary world · 2025Article
- Article
- An ELISA test using a circulatingFrontiers in veterinary science · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although several brands of tuberculin purified protein derivatives (PPDs) are available for diagnosing bovine tuberculosis (bTB), comparative studies to determine their diagnostic accuracy are infrequent. In Ecuador we compared two different PPD brands for bTB diagnosis using skin testing and measuring skin thickness increase. Additionally, we evaluated four PPD brands, including those used for skin testing, in the Bovine Tuberculosis Interferon Gamma Test (IFN-γ test) measuring IFN-γ induction in whole blood. The study included 17 naturally tuberculosis-infected PPD and IFN-γ test positive bovines. Both the field and laboratory results showed significant differences in classifying the 17 bovines as bTB positive or negative. We hypothesize that several factors, such as the genetic background of the cows, sensitization to environmental mycobacteria, M. bovis strains involved in the bTB infection, and the manufacturing procedures of the PPDs, could have influenced the immune reaction toward the different tuberculin PPD brands. Our study emphasizes the necessity for comparative studies aimed at determining the diagnostic accuracy of PPD brands for bTB diagnosis as well as the development of standardized methods for PPD production and potency determination.
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.