ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative performance and age dependence of tuberculin and defined antigen bovine tuberculosis skin tests assessed with Bayesian latent class analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tuberculin skin tests (TST), the primary diagnostic tool for bovine tuberculosis (bTB), cross-react with BCG vaccine. Recently developed defined antigen skin tests (DSTs) aim to differentiate infected amongst vaccinated animals. We evaluated the field performance of different interpretations of the TST and DSTs relative to IGRA and IDEXX M. bovis antibody tests. This panel of tests was assessed in 446 unvaccinated cattle across 22 Ethiopian dairy herds using Bayesian latent class models. We extended the standard Walter-Hui model to include age-related effects to explore evidence of the presence of diagnostic anergy. The latent class models estimate sensitivity and specificity of the DSTs to be between 84-88% and 79-85% respectively. The DSTs perform intermediately between the comparative intradermal test (CIT, sensitivity 77%, specificity 100%) and single intradermal test (SIT, sensitivity 99%, specificity 76%). We observed significant age-related declines in test sensitivity, most notably for CIT (declining from 75 to 52% over 9 years) and DST10 (83% to 68%), while other tests showed more stable sensitivity across age groups. This variable pattern across tests suggests mechanisms beyond simple age-related anergy. Together, these findings demonstrate that DSTs' superior sensitivity to CIT and comparable or better specificity than SIT, combined with their ability to distinguish vaccinated animals, creates a viable pathway for implementing BCG vaccination programs. Given the absence of any gold standard definition of infection with bTB, latent class analyses are essential to assess the relative performance of different diagnostic tests. While our results provide encouraging news for the sensitivity of the new DST tests, the high prevalence of bTB within our study population makes our design underpowered to assess the specificity of the DSTs. Future research, including assessment of the specificity of DSTs in disease-free populations and optimization of test formulation and validation through large-scale field trials is essential to fully establish the case for use in vaccination and surveillance programs.
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.