2014
DOI: 10.2478/pjvs-2014-0072
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostic performance of ID Screen® MVV-CAEV Indirect Screening ELISA in identifying small ruminant lentiviruses-infected goats

Abstract: Diagnostic performance of ID Screen ® MVV-CAEV Indirect Screening ELISA in identifying goats infected with small ruminant lentiviruses (SRLV) was evaluated. In total 299 serum samples from the collection of the Laboratory of Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics -109 truly positive and 190 truly negative -were used. To be enrolled in the study a serum sample had to come from at least 2 year-old goat which had reacted identically in two serological surveys preceding sample collection and was kept in a herd of s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
14
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Both ELISAs were performed according to manufacturers’ manuals. Sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) was 98.6% and 99.3% respectively for Checkit ELISA [ 12 ], and 91.7% and 98.9%, respectively for ID Screen ELISA [ 13 ]. Apparent within-herd seroprevalence (AP) was the proportion of seropositive adult goats in the herd.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both ELISAs were performed according to manufacturers’ manuals. Sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) was 98.6% and 99.3% respectively for Checkit ELISA [ 12 ], and 91.7% and 98.9%, respectively for ID Screen ELISA [ 13 ]. Apparent within-herd seroprevalence (AP) was the proportion of seropositive adult goats in the herd.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To obtain true seroprevalence apparent seroprevalence was adjusted by the sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA test used. They were 84% and 100%, respectively, for both the Bommeli and Pourquier ELISAs [ 17 ], and 91.7% and 98.9%, respectively, for the ID Screen ELISA [ 18 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their results were interpreted according the cut-off points recommended by the manufacturers. At these cut-off points sensitivity and specificity of the three assays was as follows: 98.6% and 99.3% for Checkit ELISA [29], 98.8% and 97.2% for Pourquier ELISA [30], and 91.7% and 98.9% for ID Screen ELISA [31]. The change of ELISA kits during the study period resulted from their availability on the market and the financial policy of the laboratory responsible for serological testing.…”
Section: Srlv Infectionmentioning
confidence: 98%