ArticleVeterinary research communications2025
Comparison of in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for Coxiella burnetii infection in cattle.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 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.
- Q fever outbreak in a slaughterhouse in Brazil: description and decade-later investigation.Infection · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coxiellosis, often asymptomatic in animals, can cause significant reproductive losses and massive shedding of Coxiella burnetii during parturition. Serological surveillance is essential for identifying positive herds and implementing control measures to protect animal and human health. The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) recommends the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for animal serosurveys due to its high sensitivity and operational simplicity. However, in many countries, the absence of authorized commercial kits and the high cost of imports limit both epidemiological surveillance and clinical diagnosis. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of an in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA) compared with a commercial ELISA kit (IDVet ID Screen Q fever indirect multi-species). In a set of 182 bovine sera, the in-house IFA achieved a sensitivity of 84.78%, specificity of 98.89%, and diagnostic accuracy of 91.76%, with a Cohen's kappa coefficient of 0.835 (95% CI: 0.692-0.979), indicating almost perfect agreement. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 98.73%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 86.41%. The moderate positive correlation between IFA titers and ELISA S/P% values (ρ = 0.503; p < 0.0001) supports their overall concordance despite differences in antigen origin. These results indicate that the in-house IFA is a reliable alternative for diagnosing and conducting epidemiological surveys of C. burnetii infection in cattle, particularly in settings where no commercial kit is available. Its high specificity and PPV make it especially valuable for confirming infection status in surveillance programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41160261What 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.