2004
DOI: 10.1590/s0034-89102004000200023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimativa de validade de um novo método de isolamento de vírus rábico

Abstract: Objective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…12,14,15 In the case of the IFA-BM, used in visceral leishmaniasis surveillance and control programs, the 1:40 dilution is usually recommended as dilution cut-off, although considering the 1+ reading as positive. Thus, the estimated sensitivity and specificity value of 57.50% results in a difference in specificity of almost 40% and, after reclassification, specificity was 97.50%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12,14,15 In the case of the IFA-BM, used in visceral leishmaniasis surveillance and control programs, the 1:40 dilution is usually recommended as dilution cut-off, although considering the 1+ reading as positive. Thus, the estimated sensitivity and specificity value of 57.50% results in a difference in specificity of almost 40% and, after reclassification, specificity was 97.50%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of these samples, three (50%) were also positive on the RT‐PCR test, suggesting that they were not false positives. The other three samples were positive solely on RTCIT, which could indicate false‐positive results possibly related to contamination or differences in reading at the microscope (Nogueira, 2004) WHO et al., 2018). However, it is important to point out that in this study, MIT was performed later than RTCIT, and viral viability could have been lost due to more extended storage and the fact that the samples were thawed for RTCIT, RT‐PCR and FTA ® imprint.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Animal use in science should be carefully evaluated to be reduced as much as possible, especially when alternative methods are available (WHO et al., 2018). Nonetheless, implementing new techniques should be carried out with caution so that parameters such as applicability and reliability are accurate while also understanding that no test will be flawless (Nogueira, 2004). In the present study, we validated reliable diagnostic tools, which will allow the reduction of animal use in rabies diagnosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%