2011
DOI: 10.5897/ajmr11.425
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison between the conventional and modern techniques used for identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

4
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
4
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the basis of the CIDT test the individual animal level prevalence of bovine TB was 1.67% (95% CI: 0.7-2.8). These results agreed with that reported by other researchers in Egypt 2.4%, 1.6%, and 1.8% (22)(23)(24). In contrast, several authors have reported either low prevalence rates 0.9%, 0.13%, 0.96%, and 0.30% (25)(26)(27)(28) or high values 11.6%, 11.3%, and 4.3% (5,7,29).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…On the basis of the CIDT test the individual animal level prevalence of bovine TB was 1.67% (95% CI: 0.7-2.8). These results agreed with that reported by other researchers in Egypt 2.4%, 1.6%, and 1.8% (22)(23)(24). In contrast, several authors have reported either low prevalence rates 0.9%, 0.13%, 0.96%, and 0.30% (25)(26)(27)(28) or high values 11.6%, 11.3%, and 4.3% (5,7,29).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The isolation rate of M. bovis for non-visible reactors was 1 (9.09%). The total recovery rate of M. bovis for both visible and nonvisible reactors was 50 (64.93%), these results agreed with (22,24,53,54). and the number of atypical mycobacteria isolates was 3 (3.9%) which agree with (26,54).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Our findings revealed a prevalence of bovine tuberculosis of 2.79% in the imported beef cattle that were under investigation. This finding nearly agrees with previous studies [ 38 , 39 ], but differs from others with a higher prevalence (11.6–24%) [ 40 – 42 ]. The low prevalence observed in our study may be attributable to the low number of tissues inspected at the slaughterhouse, or depend on other diagnostic techniques, variation in the number of examined animals [ 42 ] as well as the lack of detection of small lesions in a routine inspection.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The present study was conducted on imported beef cattle (mainly Zebu cattle) where 2150 slaughtered imported beef cattle aged 2 to 3 years old were examined, from which 60 cases showed gross lesions with a prevalence rate (of 2.78%, 60/2150). This nearly agrees with (Moussa et al, 2011), 2.46%; and(E. A. Nasr et al, 2016), 2.6%, but differs from(El-Sabban, Lotfy, Hammam, Dimitri, & Gergis, 1995), 24%; (Nawal et al, 2009), 23.91%;and (Ameni & Erkihun, 2007), 11.6%.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%