ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2025
Diagnostic Performance of Four Serological Assays for Bovine Brucellosis and Optimised Cutoff Thresholds in an Endemic Region of Iran.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a dual fluorescent microsphere-based lateral flow immunoassays for simultaneous detection ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Serological diagnosis of human brucellosis in Morocco and prospects for advanced diagnostic techniques.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Four Serological Assays for Bovine Brucellosis and Optimised Cutoff Thresholds in an Endemic Region of Iran.Veterinary medicine and 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brucellosis is a severe zoonotic infection impacting dairy cattle, requiring accurate diagnostic assays for efficient control programs. This cross-sectional study was conducted in Alborz Province, Iran, to assess the diagnostic efficacy of four serological tests for Brucella detection. One thousand serum samples were obtained from dairy cattle and analysed over 1 year of age. Furthermore, milk specimens from seropositive cows were cultured for bacteriological analysis. Serological testing detected Brucella antibodies in 33% of samples using RBT, 19.4% by SAT, 17.6% by 2-ME and 33.5% by I-ELISA. Bacterial culture detected Brucella spp. in 16.6% of seropositive milk samples, with all isolates classified as Brucella abortus biovar 3. Statistical methods were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of each test. Bayesian latent class analysis revealed that I-ELISA demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for Brucella infection in dairy cattle, with superior sensitivity and specificity. In contrast, SAT and 2-ME exhibited high specificity but lower sensitivity, while RBT showed moderate sensitivity with low specificity. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed based on the results obtained from the Bayesian latent class analysis to further evaluate the diagnostic performance of the tests. Furthermore, the ROC curve analysis showed that SAT and 2-ME displayed strong concordance with RBT. The ideal threshold for SAT and 2-ME titers was established at 5.00, optimising sensitivity and specificity. Cohen's kappa analysis assessed agreement levels, revealing that RBT demonstrated the highest concordance with I-ELISA. The results indicate that although RBT offers a simple screening approach, its sensitivity constraints require validation by I-ELISA. A significant portion of infected animals (20%) might be undetected using RBT. These findings underscore the need for various serological assays to identify brucellosis in endemic areas accurately.
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.