ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating sensitivity and specificity of the DPP Vet TB assay in badgers using Bayesian latent class models.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Proteome microarray-guided identification of mycobacterial antigens and ELISA-based peptide mapping for improved serological detection ofJournal of clinical microbiology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the UK and Ireland, the European badger is the main wildlife reservoir for Mycobacterium bovis (M. bovis), the causal agent of bovine tuberculosis (bTB). The ability to diagnose M. bovis infection in badgers is critical to understanding the epidemiology of the infection in this species and for informing control strategies. In this study we determined the sensitivity and specificity of a lateral flow assay (Dual Path Platform (DPP) VetTB assay) to identify infected live badgers using two blood sample types: fresh whole blood (suitable for immediate testing in the field without further processing) and serum (which can be stored frozen for batch testing). Two measures were used for the interpretation of test results: qualitative visual interpretation and quantitative measurement using an optical reader for a range of cut-offs. To overcome the absence of a gold standard comparison test, we used Bayesian latent class methods, applied to results from different sub-populations. Regardless of sample type, the highest sensitivity and specificity of the DPP under qualitative interpretation were obtained using Band 1 (MPB83 antigen) results. Median estimates (95% CIs) of sensitivity and specificity were 79.9% (66.1-91.4%) and 93.3% (90.7-95.7%), respectively for whole blood and 53.0% (43.0-63.7%) and 96.3% (94.7-97.7%), respectively for serum. Band 2 (ESAT-6/CFP-10), when interpreted on its own, had median sensitivity estimates of 21.4% (12.0-32.4%) for whole blood, and 6.8% (3.3-11.9%) for serum. When using Band 1 results from the optical reader, the estimate of sensitivity for whole blood was higher than for serum across the whole range of cut-offs, though with a concomitant reduction in specificity. This study provides reliable estimates of test characteristics for the DPP when applied to whole blood and serum. The results support the use of the DPP test in a field application to identify infected live badgers using whole blood samples.
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.