ArticleThe veterinary quarterly2025
Large-scale evaluation of bacteriological-based method and qPCR performance for Brucellosis diagnosis in livestock using Bayesian latent class analysis.
Article in The veterinary quarterly, 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.
- Development of a Visual RPA-CRISPR/Cas12a Assay TargetingVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Sophora flavescens Aqueous Extract Suppresses Eimeria tenella-Induced Inflammatory Responses and Regulates MAPK Pathway.Poultry science · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance of direct tests, such as bacteriological culture and qPCR, for the diagnosis of brucellosis has been evaluated in a limited number of studies, often based on small sample sizes. Moreover, the absence of a gold standard makes this assessment even more challenging. A potential alternative for evaluating the performance of direct tests is Bayesian latent class analysis (BLCA), which does not require prior knowledge of disease status or a gold standard. This study aimed to estimate the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of bacteriological culture for brucellosis diagnosis. In a brucellosis-endemic area, a large number of seronegative and seropositive buffaloes and cattle were tested using bacteriological culture and qPCR. BLCA was applied to estimate the performance of both tests. The median Se of bacteriological culture was estimated at 61.3%, compared to 70.9% of qPCR. The median Sp was 99.6% for bacteriological culture and 89.3% for qPCR. Bacteriological culture demonstrated a higher Positive Predictive Value (PPV) than qPCR in both buffaloes and cattle, whereas the Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of the two methods did not differ significantly. These results suggest that, in settings of low brucellosis prevalence, a positive bacteriological culture has a greater predictive value than qPCR .
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.