ArticleThe Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research2024
Evaluation of commercial ELISA kits' diagnostic specificity for FAST diseases in wild animals.
Article in The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research, 2024. 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.
- Advances in rapid detection technologies for zoonotic diseases: a one health-oriented review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Exposure to selected pathogens in wild mammals from a rescue and rehabilitation center in southern Italy.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Current trends and challenges in the management of foot and mouth disease in Saudi Arabia: A review.Open veterinary journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild animals, sharing pathogens with domestic animals, play a crucial role in the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Sampling from wild animals poses significant challenges, yet it is vital for inclusion in disease surveillance and monitoring programmes. Often, mass surveillance involves serological screenings using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests, typically validated only for domestic animals. This study assessed the diagnostic specificity of commercially available ELISA tests on 342 wild ruminant serum samples and 100 from wild boars. We evaluated three tests for foot-and-mouth disease: two for Peste des petits ruminants, two for Rift Valley fever and one for Capripox virus. Diagnostic specificity was calculated using the formula True Negative/(False Positive + True Negative). Cohen's kappa coefficient measured agreement between tests. Results showed high specificity and agreement across all tests. Specificity for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) ranged from 93.89% for Prionics to 100% for IDEXX, with IDvet showing 99.6%. The highest agreement was between FMD IDvet and IDEXX at 97.1%. Rift Valley fever (RVF) tests, Ingezim and IDvet, achieved specificities of 100% and 98.83%, respectively. The optimal specificity was attained by retesting single reactors and inactivating the complement.Contribution: Commercially available ELISA kits are specific for foot-and-mouth disease and similar transboundary animal diseases and can be used for highly specific wild animal testing.
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.