Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of five serological tests for the diagnosis of porcine brucellosis

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

Volumn 104, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 94-100

  Praud, Anne ^a   Gimenez, Olivier ^b   Zanella, Gina ^c   Dufour, Barbara ^a   Pozzi, Nathalie ^d   Antras, Valérie ^e   Meyer, Laurence ^f,g   Garin Bastuji, Bruno ^c  

^a Alfort National Veterinary School (ENVA)   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c ANSES   (France)

^d National Laboratory for the Control of Breeding Animals   (France)

^e Service of Rural Development   (French Polynesia)

^f INSERM   (France)

^g BICÊTRE HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Bayesian model; Brucella suis; Diagnostic tests; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

BACTERIUM ANTIBODY;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ARTICLE; BLOOD; BRUCELLA SUIS; BRUCELLOSIS; COMPLEMENT FIXATION TEST; ENZYME LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; FRANCE; IMMUNOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEROLOGY; SWINE; SWINE DISEASE;

ANIMALS; ANTIBODIES, BACTERIAL; BRUCELLA SUIS; BRUCELLOSIS; COMPLEMENT FIXATION TESTS; ENZYME-LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY; FRANCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SEROEPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; SEROLOGIC TESTS; SWINE; SWINE DISEASES;

ANIMALIA; BRUCELLA MELITENSIS BIOVAR SUIS; SUIDAE; SUS;

EID: 84856785651     PISSN: 01675877     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.10.014     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Berkvens D., Speybroeck N., Praet N., Adel A., Lesaffre E. Estimating disease prevalence in a Bayesian framework using probabilistic constraints. Epidemiology 2006, 17:145-153.
2. Branscum A.J., Gardner I.A., Johnson W.O. Estimation of diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity through Bayesian modeling. Prev. Vet. Med. 2005, 68:145-163.
3. Dendukuri N., Joseph L. Bayesian approaches to modeling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometric 2001, 57:158-167.
4. Donald A.W., Gardner I.A., Wiggins A.D. Cut-off points for aggregate testing in the presence of disease clustering and correlation of tests errors. Prev. Vet. Med. 1994, 19:167-187.
5. EFSA Porcine brucellosis (Brucella suis): scientific opinion of the panel on animal health and welfare. EFSA J. 2009, 1144:1-112.
6. Enøe C., Georgiadis M.P., Johnson W.O. Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease is unknown. Prev. Vet. Med. 2000, 45:61-81.
7. EU, 2008. Commission Decision of 10 December 2008 amending Annex C to Council Directive 64/432/EEC and Decision 2004/226/EC as regards diagnostic tests for bovine brucellosis (2008/984/EC). OJEU, 31/12/2008, L 352/38-45.
8. Gall D., Colling A., Marino O., Moreno E., Nielsen K., Perez B., Samartino L. Enzyme immunoassay for serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis: a trial in Latin America. Clin. Diag. Lab. Immunol. 1998, 5:654-661.
9. Gall D., Nielsen K., Vigliocco A., Smith P., Perez B., Rojas X., Robles C. Evaluation of an indirect enzyme-linked immunoassay for presumptive serodiagnosis of Brucella ovis in sheep. Small Ruminant Res. 2003, 48:173-179.
10. Gall D., Nielsen K. Serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis: a review of test performance and cost comparison. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 2004, 23:989-1002.
11. Gardner I.A., Stryhn H., Lind P., Collins M.T. Conditional dependence between tests affects the diagnosis and surveillance of animal disease. Prev. Vet. Med. 2000, 45:107-122.
12. Gelman A., Carlin J.B., Sterns H.S., Rubin D.B. Bayesian Data Analysis 1995, Chapman & Hall, London, 528 pp.
13. Greiner M., Gardner I.A. Epidemiologic issues in the validation of veterinary diagnostic tests. Prev. Vet. Med. 2000, 45:3-22.
14. Johnson W.O., Gastwirth J.L. Bayesian inference for medical screening tests: approximations useful for the analysis of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 1991, 53:427-439.
15. Johnson W.O., Gardner I.A., Metoyer C.N., Branscum A.J. On the interpretation of test sensitivity in the two-test two-population problem: assumptions matter. Prev. Vet. Med. 2009, 91:116-121.
16. Lunn D.J., Thomas A., Best N., Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS: a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat. Comput. 2000, 10:325-337.
17. Meyer N., Vinzio S., Goichot B. La statistique bayésienne: une approche des statistiques adaptée à la clinique. Rev. Méd. Int. 2009, 30:242-249.
18. Muma J.B., Lund A., Nielsen K., Matope G., Munyenne M., Mwacalimba K., Skjerve E. Effectiveness of Rose Bengal test and fluorescence polarization assay in the diagnosis of Brucella spp. infections in free range cattle reared in endemic areas in Zambia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2009, 41:723-729.
19. Muñoz P.M., Marin C.M., Monreal D., Gonzalez D., Garin-Bastuji B., Diaz R., Mainar-Jaime R.C., Moriyon I., Blasco J.M. Efficacy of several serological tests and antigens for diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in the presence of false-positive serological results due to Yersinia enterocolitica O:9. Clin. Diag. Lab. Immunol. 2005, 12:141-151.
20. Nielsen K. Diagnosis of brucellosis by serology. Vet. Microbiol. 2002, 90:447-459.
21. Nielsen K., Smith P., Yu W.L., Elmgren C., Halbert G., Nicoletti P., Perez B., Conde S., Samartino L., Nicola A., Bermudez R., Renteria T. Validation of a second generation competitive enzyme immunoassay (CELISA) for the diagnosis of brucellosis in various species of domestic animals. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2008, 125:246-250.
22. Nielsen S.S., Toft N. Optimisation of the validity of ELISA and faecal culture tests for paratuberculosis: selection of population or correction by population characteristics?. Proc. 7th International Colloquium on Paratuberculosis 2002, 400-405.
23. OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) Chapter 2.4.3, Bovine brucellosis. Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals 2008, OIE, Paris, France, pp. 624-659. 6th ed.
24. OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) Chapter 1.3, Prescribed and alternative diagnostic tests for OIE listed diseases. Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2009, OIE, Paris, France, pp. 9-13. 18th ed.
25. Praet N., Dorny P., Saegerman C., Marcotty T., Berkvens D. Estimation de la prévalence d'une maladie et des caractéristiques des tests diagnostiques par une approche bayésienne. Epidémiol. Santé Anim. 2006, 49:113-130.
26. Rutjes A.W.S., Reitsma J.B., Coomarasamy A., Khan K.S., Bossuyt P.M.M. Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods. Health Technol. Assess. 2007, 11(50):72.
27. SanCristobal M., Chevalet C., Haley C.S., Joosten R., Rattink P., Harlizius B., Groenen M.A.M., Amigues Y., Boscher M.Y., Russell G., Law A., Davoli R., Russo V., Désautés C., Alderson L., Fimland E., Bagga M., Delgado J.V., Vegas-Pla J.L., Martinez A.M., Ramos M., Glodek P., Meyer N., Gandini G.C., Matassino D., Plastow G.S., Siggens K.W., Laval G., Archibald A.L., Milan D., Hammond K., Cardellino R. Genetic diversity within and between European pig breeds using microsatellite markers. Anim. Genet. 2006, 37(3):189-198.
28. Silva Paulo P., Vigliocco A.M., Ramondino R.F., Marticorena D., Bissi E., Briones G., Gorchs C., Gall D., Nielsen K. Evaluation of primary binding assays for presumptive serodiagnosis of swine brucellosis in Argentina. Clin. Diag. Lab. Immunol. 2000, 7:828-831.
29. Spiegelhalter D.J., Best N.G., Carlin B.R., van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B: Stat. Methodol. 2002, 64:583-616.
30. Vacek P.M. The effect of conditional dependence on the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 1985, 41:959-968.