ArticleVeterinary research communications2024
Diagnosis of botulism in mammals aided by toxin ELISA and C and D gene RT-PCRs with an emphasis on farm animals.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2024. 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.
- Equine botulism.Equine veterinary journal · 2026Review
- Identification of botulism C/D in 2 dogsThe Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal welfare and ethical considerations limit the use of the mouse lethality bioassay for the detection of botulinum toxins. This study assessed an ELISA and RT-PCRs to detect toxin types C and D in samples from mammals with flaccid paralysis or weakness. DNA/RNA tightly bound to the toxin molecules were used as surrogates for the presence of toxin. In total 391 diverse samples from 101 clinical cases from cattle and 9 other species were examined. Botulism was confirmed by ELISA in samples from 16 cases. Toxin type C or D was identified by RT-PCR in 10 cases, five of which were among the cases confirmed by ELISA. Among the 80 cases with negative samples, sampling was not comprehensive enough in 66 cases (botulism therefore not excluded) but was adequate in 14 cases (no indication of botulism). The last two categories included 16 cases with other laboratory findings explaining the clinical signs. The ELISA that detects botulinum C and D toxins was superior in identifying cases with positive samples compared to the RT-PCRs but the latter were able to identify the toxin type present when positive. Furthermore, the RT-PCRs are available to any laboratory with molecular testing capability. Both laboratory assays can screen a comprehensive range and a large number of samples which is crucial for a successful diagnosis of botulism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39287892What 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.