Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/20908
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Roelandt, S. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Van der Stede, Y. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Czaplicki, G. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Van Loo, H. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Van Driessche, E. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Dewulf, J. | - |
dc.contributor.author | HOOYBERGHS, Jef | - |
dc.contributor.author | FAES, Christel | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-04-01T11:24:07Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-04-01T11:24:07Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Veterinary record 176(23) | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0042-4900 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/20908 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Currently, there are no perfect reference tests for the in vivo detection of Neospora caninum infection. Two commercial N caninum ELISA tests are currently used in Belgium for bovine sera (TEST A and TEST B). The goal of this study is to evaluate these tests used at their current cut-offs, with a no gold standard approach, for the test purpose of (1) demonstration of freedom of infection at purchase and (2) diagnosis in aborting cattle. Sera of two study populations, Abortion population (n=196) and Purchase population (n=514), were selected and tested with both ELISA's. Test results were entered in a Bayesian model with informative priors on population prevalences only (Scenario 1). As sensitivity analysis, two more models were used: one with informative priors on test diagnostic accuracy (Scenario 2) and one with all priors uninformative (Scenario 3). The accuracy parameters were estimated from the first model: diagnostic sensitivity (Test A: 93.54 per cent–Test B: 86.99 per cent) and specificity (Test A: 90.22 per cent–Test B: 90.15 per cent) were high and comparable (Bayesian P values >0.05). Based on predictive values in the two study populations, both tests were fit for purpose, despite an expected false negative fraction of ±0.5 per cent in the Purchase population and ±5 per cent in the Abortion population. In addition, a false positive fraction of ±3 per cent in the overall Purchase population and ±4 per cent in the overall Abortion population was found. | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.title | Serological diagnosis of bovine neosporosis: a Bayesian evaluation of two Antibody ELISA tests for in vivo diagnosis in purchased an abortion cattle. | - |
dc.type | Journal Contribution | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 23 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 176 | - |
local.format.pages | 9 | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.jcat | A1 | - |
local.type.refereed | Refereed | - |
local.type.specified | Article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1136/vr.102872 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | 000356167400018 | - |
item.contributor | Roelandt, S. | - |
item.contributor | Van der Stede, Y. | - |
item.contributor | Czaplicki, G. | - |
item.contributor | Van Loo, H. | - |
item.contributor | Van Driessche, E. | - |
item.contributor | Dewulf, J. | - |
item.contributor | HOOYBERGHS, Jef | - |
item.contributor | FAES, Christel | - |
item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
item.validation | ecoom 2016 | - |
item.fullcitation | Roelandt, S.; Van der Stede, Y.; Czaplicki, G.; Van Loo, H.; Van Driessche, E.; Dewulf, J.; HOOYBERGHS, Jef & FAES, Christel (2015) Serological diagnosis of bovine neosporosis: a Bayesian evaluation of two Antibody ELISA tests for in vivo diagnosis in purchased an abortion cattle.. In: Veterinary record 176(23). | - |
item.accessRights | Restricted Access | - |
crisitem.journal.issn | 0042-4900 | - |
crisitem.journal.eissn | 2042-7670 | - |
Appears in Collections: | Research publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Veterinary Record-2015-Roelandt-vr.102872.pdf Restricted Access | Published version | 552.86 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open Request a copy |
SCOPUSTM
Citations
5
checked on Sep 2, 2020
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
3
checked on May 1, 2024
Page view(s)
18
checked on Sep 7, 2022
Download(s)
8
checked on Sep 7, 2022
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.