Bayesian estimation of the true prevalence,sensitivity and specificity of the Rose Bengal and indirect ELISA tests in the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis |
| |
| Institution: | 1. LANADA, Central Veterinary Laboratory of Bingerville, PO Box 206, Bingerville, Cote d’Ivoire;2. Unit of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Animal Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine (ITM), Nationalestraat 155, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium;3. Research Unit of Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Applied to Veterinary Sciences (UREAR-ULg), Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liège, Boulevard de Colonster 20, B42, B-4000 Liège, Belgium;4. Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, Veterinary and Agro-Chemical Research Centre (VAR), Uccle, Groeselenberg 99, 1180 Brussels, Belgium;1. Key Laboratory of Zoonosis, Ministry of Education, Institute of Zoonosis, Jilin University, Changchun 130062, China;2. Tumor Hospital of Jilin Province, Changchun 130021, China;1. Division of Infection and Pathway Medicine, School of Biomedical Sciences, College of Medicine & Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Chancellor’s Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SB, UK;2. Instituto de Salud Tropical y Depto. Microbiología y Parasitología, Universidad de Navarra, Edificio de Investigación, c/Irunlarrea 1, 31008 Pamplona, Spain;3. CITA?Gobierno de Aragón?Unidad de Sanidad Animal, Avenida de Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain;1. Zoonoses and Epidemiology Unit, Niger State Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, Minna, Nigeria;2. National Veterinary Research Institute, Vom, Nigeria |
| |
| Abstract: | Serology is the most convenient method for detecting brucellosis but the efficient use of such tests in disease control requires evaluation of diagnostic performance and discriminative ability. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of the Rose Bengal test (RBT) and an indirect ELISA (iELISA) in diagnosing brucellosis in 995 serum samples collected from cattle in the Ivory Coast between 2005 and 2009. A Bayesian approach was used to evaluate the two tests by estimating their sensitivities and specificities.The correlation-adjusted sensitivity of the iELISA was estimated to be 96.1% (credibility interval CrI], 92.7–99.8), whereas that of the RBT was 54.9% (CrI, 23.5–95.1). High correlation-adjusted specificities were found for both tests (95.0%; CrI, 91.1–99.6] for the iELISA and 97.7%; CrI, 95.3–99.4] for the RBT, respectively). The true prevalence of brucellosis was estimated from the serum samples to be 4.6% (95%; CrI, 0.6–9.5]). The level of agreement between the two tests was evaluated using indices of agreement (n = 995). Good agreement was found for negative results (96.6%; confidence interval CI], 95.7–97.4), a finding supported by an estimated significant correlation of 0.37 (95%; CI, 0.01–0.73) within the sera testing negative. Agreement was lower for sera testing positive (52.2% CI: 41.9–62.5). The findings highlight the importance of using these two tests in combination as part of any brucellosis control programme. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
