2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2014.09.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative evaluation of the DPP® CVL rapid test for canine serodiagnosis in area of visceral leishmaniasis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
62
5
14

Year Published

2016
2016
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(88 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
7
62
5
14
Order By: Relevance
“…After antigens were obtained, the ELISA technique was performed for each of the antigens as previously described 12 . Reference serum samples from the serum bank of the Laboratory of Parasitic Diseases in the Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health at the College of Veterinary Medicine (FMVZ), University of São Paulo (USP), were included as negative and positive controls.…”
Section: Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay With Crude Antigenmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After antigens were obtained, the ELISA technique was performed for each of the antigens as previously described 12 . Reference serum samples from the serum bank of the Laboratory of Parasitic Diseases in the Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health at the College of Veterinary Medicine (FMVZ), University of São Paulo (USP), were included as negative and positive controls.…”
Section: Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay With Crude Antigenmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the specificity of both TR DPP ® and ELISA can be low 15 , thereby compromising the efficacy of these screening methods in Brazil. Additionally, several conventional serological tests are limited due to their cross reactivity with other parasitic diseases 16 . Therefore, more efficient tests must be identified and combined with others for the improved identification of naturally infected animals 6 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dogs that did not show clinical signs were considered subclinically infected dogs (SI group). The control group (CLT) consisted of dogs from the same areas of endemicity that had no clinical signs and tested negative by PCR, LST, LPA, and anti-L. infantum IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as described by Laurenti et al (37). Given the predicted effects of vaccination on the immune response, dogs that had previous vaccination or immunotherapy against CanL were removed from the CMI profile evaluation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%