ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and evaluation of a novel lateral flow immunoassay for rapid diagnosis of brucellosis across different animal species.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervico-vaginal ISGs and interferon tau: emerging biomarkers for early pregnancy detection in cattle.Veterinary research communications · 2026Review
- Quantitative proteomics identifies GntR as a novel potential DIVA antigen for bovine brucellosis.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Clinical performance of 3 commercially available point-of-care antibody tests for Brucella canis in dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Rapid serological detection of smoothFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Preventive Immunology for Livestock and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases in the One Health Era: From Mechanistic Insights to Innovative Interventions.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brucellosis, a prevalent zoonotic disease, induces substantial economic losses in livestock due to reproductive impairments and high mortality rates; it also presents considerable public health concerns worldwide. The current work highlights the potential application of the developed lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA) in the rapid and accurate detection of Brucella spp., underscoring its significance in disease management and control. The study investigated the purity of the extracted B. abortus smooth lipopolysaccharides-O (S-LPS-O) using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Moreover, it delved into the development and assessment of a novel diagnostic kit for Brucella using a recombinant protein A-lateral flow assay in comparison to the RBPT, SAT, MRT, I-ELISA as screening tests, also to C-ELISA, CFT as confirmatory tests. HPLC analysis indicated a distinctive absence of impurities in the extracted S-LPS-O, contrasting with the three peaks observed in the commercial LPS chromatogram. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy evaluations were performed, with the LFIA demonstrating promising results, showcasing its potential as a reliable diagnostic tool. Statistical analysis of the LFIA, RBPT, SAT, MRT, ELISA, CFT, and PCR results revealed notable sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates, affirming the diagnostic efficacy of the LFIA. The novel layout of the LFIA and the purity of extracted S-LPS-O showcased significant progress in the diagnostic capabilities of the developed LFIA. Moreover, the currently developed LFIA introduces a rapid and reliable diagnostic tool, particularly in resource-limited settings, owing to its ease of use and minimal equipment requirements with its competitively obtained results.
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.