scholarly journals Examination of sensitivity and specificity of some serological tests in diagnostics of bovine brucellosis

2008 ◽  
Vol 58 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 467-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matovic Kazimir ◽  
Asanin Ruzica ◽  
Radojicic Sonja ◽  
Lako B. ◽  
Zarkovic A.
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Bovine Brucellosis ◽  
Serological Tests

scholarly journals Bayesian Estimation of the Prevalence and Test Characteristics (Sensitivity and Specificity) of Two Serological Tests (RB and SAT-EDTA) for the Diagnosis of Bovine Brucellosis in Small and Medium Cattle Holders in Ecuador

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 1815
Author(s):  
Valeria Paucar ◽  
Jorge Ron-Román ◽  
Washington Benítez-Ortiz ◽  
Maritza Celi ◽  
Dirk Berkvens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Deviance Information Criterion ◽  
Coastal Region ◽  
Information Criterion ◽  
Herd Size ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Bovine Brucellosis ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Animal Blood ◽  
True Prevalence

In Ecuador, a national program for bovine brucellosis control has been in implementation since 2008. Given the costs, small- and medium-sized livestock holders are not completely committed to it. The objective of this study was to determine true prevalence (TP) of bovine brucellosis in small- and medium-sized herd populations, as well as the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the Rose Bengal (RB) test and the sero-agglutination test (SAT)-EDTA using a Bayesian approach. Between 2011 and 2016, 2733 cattle herds were visited, and 22,592 animal blood samples were taken in nineteen provinces on mainland Ecuador. Bayes-p and deviance information criterion (DIC) statistics were used to select models. Additionally, risk-factor analysis was used for herds according to their brucellosis test status. True prevalence (TP) in herds was estimated by pool testing. National seroprevalence of farms was 7.9% (95% CI: 6.79–9.03), and TP was 12.2% (95% CI: 7.8–17.9). Apparent prevalence (AP) in animals was 2.2% (95% CI: 1.82–2.67), and TP was 1.6% (95% CrI: 1.0–2.4). Similarly, the sensitivity of the RB was estimated at 64.6% (95% CrI: 42.6–85.3) and specificity at 98.9% (95% CrI: 98.6–99.0); for the SAT-EDTA test, sensitivity was 62.3% (95% CrI: 40.0–84.8) and 98.9% (95% CrI: 98.6–99.1) for specificity. Results of the two tests were highly correlated in infected and uninfected animals. Likewise, high spatial variation was observed, with the Coastal Region being the zone with the highest TP at 2.5%. (95% CrI: 1.3–3.8%) in individual animals and 28.2% (95% CI: 15.7–39.8) in herds. Risk factors include herd size, type of production (milk, beef, and mixed), abortions recorded, and vaccination. The results of this study serve to guide authorities to make decisions based on parallel testing at the beginning of a bovine brucellosis program for small livestock holders to increase sensitivity level of the screening tests in Ecuador.

scholarly journals A quantitative comparison of the sensitivity of serological tests for bovine brucellosis to different antibody classes

1976 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. S. Allan ◽  
R. J. Chappel ◽  
P. Williamson ◽  
D. J. McNaught
Keyword(s):  
Complement Fixation Test ◽  
Complement Fixation ◽  
Quantitative Comparison ◽  
Agglutination Test ◽  
Bovine Brucellosis ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Plate Test ◽  
Specific Antibodies ◽  
The Rose ◽  
Serum Agglutination

SUMMARYBrucella-specific antibodies of different immunoglobulin classes were quantitatively evaluated with respect to their efficiency in serological tests for bovine brucellosis.IgM reacted more efficiently than IgG1and IgG2in both the Rose Bengal plate test and serum agglutination test. The complement fixation test was found to be slightly more sensitive to IgM than to IgG1and did not react to IgG2.IgM was, however, partly inactivated when heated at 60°C. in the presence of serum.

scholarly journals Comparison of Coombs Gel Test with ELISA and Standard Tube Agglutination Tests Used in Serological Diagnosis of Brucellosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cigdem Akalan Kuyumcu ◽  
Serpil Erol ◽  
Rıza Adaleti ◽  
Seniha Senbayrak ◽  
Secil Deniz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Serological Test ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Serological Diagnosis ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Reliable Test ◽  
And Control

Objective: Serological tests are the most commonly used tests in the diagnosis of brucellosis; however, each serological test has some drawbacks. In this study, we aimed to determine the value of the Brucella Coombs gel test (BCGT) in the serological diagnosis of brucellosis in comparison with Standard tube agglutination (STA) and ELISA tests. Materials and Methods: The study included 42 patients who were considered to have brucellosis as a preliminary diagnosis. BCGT, Brucella-IgM/IgG ELISA, and STA tests were performed from serum samples of the patients. The correlation of the diagnostic tests was analyzed using Cohen’s Kappa Analysis.  Results: Twenty-seven (64.2%) of 42 patients were diagnosed with brucellosis according to their medical history and clinical and serological tests. The sensitivity and specificity of BCGT to diagnose brucellosis was 96.2%, and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of brucellosis 62.9% and 100% for STA, respectively; 33.3% and 66.6% for Brucella-IgM; and 66.6% and 100% for Brucella-IgG. BCGT was significantly correlated with STA (κ= 0.590) and Brucella-IgG (κ=0.539) Conclusion: BCGT can be utilized as a simple and reliable test in the diagnosis of brucellosis with high sensitivity and specificity. Nevertheless, the sensitivity and specificity of BCGT should be demonstrated by comprehensive studies, including culture-confirmed cases and control groups.

scholarly journals Bayesian evaluation of three serological tests for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh

2019 ◽  
Vol 147 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. K. M. A. Rahman ◽  
S. Smit ◽  
B. Devleesschauwer ◽  
P. Kostoulas ◽  
E. Abatih ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Latent Class ◽  
Latent Class Model ◽  
Dairy Farm ◽  
Agglutination Test ◽  
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ◽  
Bovine Brucellosis ◽  
Class Model ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Conditional Dependence

AbstractWe evaluated the performance of three serological tests – an immunoglobulin G indirect enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA), a Rose Bengal test and a slow agglutination test (SAT) – for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh. Cattle sera (n = 1360) sourced from Mymensingh district (MD) and a Government owned dairy farm (GF) were tested in parallel. We used a Bayesian latent class model that adjusted for the conditional dependence among the three tests and assumed constant diagnostic accuracy of the three tests in both populations. The sensitivity and specificity of the three tests varied from 84.6% to 93.7%, respectively. The true prevalences of bovine brucellosis in MD and the GF were 0.6% and 20.4%, respectively. Parallel interpretation of iELISA and SAT yielded the highest negative predictive values: 99.9% in MD and 99.6% in the GF; whereas serial interpretation of both iELISA and SAT produced the highest positive predictive value (PPV): 99.9% in the GF and also high PPV (98.9%) in MD. We recommend the use of both iELISA and SAT together and serial interpretation for culling and parallel interpretation for import decisions. Removal of brucellosis positive cattle will contribute to the control of brucellosis as a public health risk in Bangladesh.

Field trial of six serological tests for bovine brucellosis

2012 ◽  
Vol 191 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.A. Abernethy ◽  
F.D. Menzies ◽  
S.J. McCullough ◽  
S.W.J. McDowell ◽  
K.E. Burns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Field Trial ◽  
Bovine Brucellosis ◽  
Serological Tests

scholarly journals Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m2516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayara Lisboa Bastos ◽  
Gamuchirai Tavaziva ◽  
Syed Kunal Abidi ◽  
Jonathon R Campbell ◽  
Louis-Patrick Haraoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Serological Test ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serological Tests ◽  
Immunoglobulin Class

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document