ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Comparison of test performance of a conventional PCR and two field-friendly tests to detect
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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.
- Combining PCR and Metagenomic Approaches to Reveal Tick-Borne Pathogens in Ticks Collected from Livestock and Companion Animals in Cambodia.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Molecular characterisation of tick-borne pathogens in cattle in kenya: insights from blood, ticks, and skin swab analyses.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- The Microbiome and Coxiella Diversity Found in Amblyomma hebraeum and Dermacentor rhinocerinus Ticks Sampled from White Rhinoceros.Microbial ecology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methods: In total, 169 ticks from wild animals and cattle in wildlife conservancies in northern Kenya were screened for Results: The final BLCA model included main effects and estimated that PCR-HRM had the highest Se (86%; 95% credible interval: 56-99%), followed by the Biomeme (Se = 57%; 95% credible interval: 34-90%), with the estimated Se of the cPCR being the lowest (24%, 95% credible interval: 10-47%). Specificity estimates for all three assays ranged from 94 to 98%. Based on the model, an estimated 16% of ticks had Discussion: These results reflect the endemicity of
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.