Estimation of receiver-operating characteristic curves to determine accuracy of a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the serodiagnosis of Brucella infection in domestic water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) and cattle

American Journal of Veterinary Research

Volumn 64, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 57-64

  Fosgate, Geoffrey T ^a   Adesiyun, Abiodun A ^b   Hird, David W ^a   Johnson, Wesley O ^a   Hietala, Sharon K ^a   Schurig, Gerhardt G ^c   Ryan, Joseph ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES   (Trinidad and Tobago)

^c VIRGINIA MARYLAND REGIONAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE   (United States)

^d Ministry of Agriculture   (Trinidad and Tobago)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY;

ANTIBODY SPECIFICITY; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BLOOD SAMPLING; BRUCELLOSIS; BUFFALO; CALCULATION; CATTLE DISEASE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DOMESTIC ANIMAL; ENZYME LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY; NONHUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SERODIAGNOSIS; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STANDARD;

ANIMALS; ANTIBODIES, BACTERIAL; BRUCELLA ABORTUS; BRUCELLOSIS, BOVINE; BUFFALOES; CATTLE; ENZYME-LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO;

ANIMALIA; BOS TAURUS; BRUCELLA; BUBALUS; BUBALUS BUBALIS;

EID: 0037248103     PISSN: 00029645     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.2003.64.57     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Blajan L, Melendez LV. Contribution of the OIE to controlling animal brucellosis on a world-wide scale. Rev Sci Tech 1984;3:167-189.
2. Fosgate GT, Adesiyun AA, Hird DW, et al. Isolation of Brucella abortus biovar 1 from cattle and water buffalo of Trinidad. Vet Rec 2002;151:272-273.
3. Zaki R. Brucella abortus infection among buffaloes in Egypt. J Comp Pathol 1948;58:73-79.
4. Mathur TN. A study of human brucellosis based on cultures isolated from man and animals. Indian J Med Res 1968;56:250-258.
5. Mohan RN. Diseases and parasites of buffaloes. Vet Bull 1968;38:647-659.
6. Panjarathinam R, Jhala CI. Brucellosis in Gujarat State. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 1986;29:53-60.
7. Pal M, Jain HS. Anthropozoonotic role of Brucella abortus. Int J Zoonoses 1986;13:246-248.
8. Nicoletti P. An evaluation of serologic tests used to diagnose brucellosis in buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Trop Anim Health Prod 1992;24:40-44.
9. Sandhu KS, Joshi DV. Comparative study in cattle and buffaloes for evaluation of various diagnostic tests for brucellosis. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 1993;36:458-465.
10. Fosgate GT, Adesiyun AA, Hird DW, et al. Comparison of serologic tests for detection of Brucella infections in cattle and water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Am J Vet Res 2002;63:1598-1605.
11. Rao CK. Epizootiology, diagnosis and control of brucellosis in India. Bull Off Int Epizoot 1970;73:3-7.
12. Subharngkasen S. Brucellosis in Thailand. Bull Off Int Epizoot 1970;73:9-15.
13. Joshi DV, Prakash O. Prevalence of brucellosis in man and animals. Indian J Pathol Bacteriol 1971;14:96-101.
14. Nandgoankar D, Narayana Rao PL. A survey of the incidence of bovine brucellosis in the integrated milk project area and in some of the dairy farms of Andhra Pradesh. Indian Vet J 1971;48:12-18.
15. Randhawa AS, Kalra DS, Kapur MP. Some sero-epidemiologic observations on brucellosis in humans and animals. Indian J Med Sci 1974;28:133-138.
16. Sharma VD, Sethi MS, Yadav MP, et al. Sero-epidemiologic investigations on brucellosis in the states of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and Delhi (India). Int J Zoonoses 1979;6:75-81.
17. Mathias LA, Pinto AA. Serological diagnosis of brucellosis in water buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis): comparison among complement fixation, serum agglutination and rose bengal plate test. Int J Zoonoses 1983;10:122-126.
18. Akhtar S, Afzal M, Ali S, et al. Effect of reactor retention on the spread of brucellosis in Jersey cattle and buffalo herds. Rev Sci Tech 1990;9:1179-1185.
19. Akhtar S, Mirza MA. Rates of seroconversion in the progeny of Brucella abortus seropositive and seronegative cattle and buffalo. Rev Sci Tech 1995;14:711-718.
20. Sharma JK, Saini SS. Sero-prevalence of brucellosis among farm animals of Punjab. Indian Vet J 1995;72:881-882.
21. Isloor S, Renukaradhya GJ, Rajasekhar M. A serological survey of bovine brucellosis in India. Rev Sci Tech 1998;17:781-785.
22. Wright PF, Nielsen KH, Kelly WA. Primary binding techniques for the serodiagnosis of bovine brucellosis: enzyme immunoassay. In: Nielsen KH, Duncan JR, eds. Animal brucellosis. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press Inc, 1990;199-235.
23. Nielsen KH, Kelly L, Gall D, et al. A competitive enzyme immunoassay for the detection of serum antibody to Brucella abortus. APHD Standard Protocol version 2.0. Nepean, ON, Canada: Animal Diseases Research Institute, 1994.
24. Gall D, Nielsen K. Improvements to the competitive ELISA for detection of antibodies to Brucella abortus in cattle sera. J Immunoassay 1994;15:277-291.
25. Nielsen K. A brief review of diagnosis of bovine brucellosis by detection of antibody. Arch Med Vet 1995;27:9-17.
26. Nielsen KH, Kelly L, Gall D, et al. Improved competitive enzyme immunoassay for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 1995;46:285-291.
27. Nielsen KH, Kelly L, Gall D, et al. Comparison of enzyme immunoassays for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Prev Vet Med 1996;26:17-32.
28. Stack JA, Perrett LL, Brew SD, et al. Competitive ELISA for bovine brucellosis suitable for testing poor quality samples. Vet Rec 1999;145:735-734.
29. Nielsen K, Cherwonogrodzky JW, Duncan JR, et al. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for differentiation of the antibody response of cattle naturally infected with Brucella abortus or vaccinated with strain 19. Am J Vet Res 1989;50:5-9.
30. Uzal FA, Carrasco AE, Nielsen KH. Evaluation of a competitive ELISA for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Vet Res Commun 1996;20:421-426.
31. Gall D, Colling A, Marino O, et al. Enzyme immunoassays for serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis: a trial in Latin America. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 1998;5:654-661.
32. Samartino L, Gall D, Gregoret R, et al. Validation of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Vet Microbiol 1999;70:193-200.
33. Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993;39:561-577.
34. Jensen AL, Poulsen JSD. Evaluation of diagnostic tests using relative operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the differential positive rate. An example using the total serum bile acid concentration and the alanine aminotransferase activity in the diagnosis of canine hepatobiliary diseases. Zentralbl Veterinarmedizin [A] 1992;39:656-668.
35. Barthez PY, Hornof WJ, Théon AP, et al. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the performance of various radiographic protocols when screening dogs for pulmonary metastases. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;204:237-240.
36. Greiner M, Sohr D, Göbel P. A modified ROC analysis for the selection of cut-off values and the definition of intermediate results of serodiagnostic tests. J Immunol Methods 1995;185:123-132.
37. Jensen AL, Thøfner MT, Iverasen L. Application of receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves to veterinary clinical pathology. Comp Haematol Int 1996;6:176-181.
38. Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD. Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 2000;45:23-41.
39. Hui SL, Walter SD. Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1980;36:167-171.
40. Vacek PM. The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1985;41:959-968.
41. Dendukuri N, Joseph L. Bayesian approaches to modeling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics 2001;57:158-167.
42. Joseph L, Gyorkos TW, Coupal L. Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:263-272.
43. Enøe C, Georgiadis MP, Johnson WO. Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease state is unknown. Prev Vet Med 2000;45:61-81.
44. Johnson WO, Gastwirth JL, Pearson LM. Screening without a "gold standard": the Hui-Walter paradigm revisited. Am J Epidemiol 2001;153:921-924.
45. Carlin BP, Louis TA. Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for data analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, Fla: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press Inc, 2000;121-191.
46. Efron B. Nonparametric estimates of standard error: the jack-knife, the bootstrap and other methods. Biometrika 1981;68:589-599.
47. Platt RW, Hanley JA, Yang H. Bootstrap confidence intervals for the sensitivity of a quantitative diagnostic test. Stat Med 2000;18:313-322.
48. Aegerter P, Muller F, Nakache JP, et al. Evaluation of screening methods for Down's syndrome using bootstrap comparison of ROC curves. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1994;43:151-157.
49. Mossman D. Resampling techniques in the analysis of non-binormal ROC data. Med Decis Making 1995;15:358-366.
50. Campbell G, Levy D, Bailey JJ. Bootstrap comparison of fuzzy ROC curves for ECG-LVH algorithms using data from the Framingham Heart Study. J Electrocardiol 1991;23(suppl):132-137.