Validation of a Neospora caninum iscom ELISA without a gold standard

被引:51
作者
Frössling, J
Bonnett, B
Lindberg, A
Björkman, C
机构
[1] Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Ruminant Med & Vet Epidemiol, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
[2] Univ Guelph, Ontario Vet Coll, Dept Populat Med, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
[3] Swedish Dairy Assoc, Res & Dev, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
[4] Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Dept Parasitol SWEPAR, Natl Vet Inst, SE-75189 Uppsala, Sweden
关键词
Neospora caninum; iscom ELISA; sensitivity; specificity; Gibbs sampling; cut-off; TG-ROC;
D O I
10.1016/S0167-5877(02)00216-7
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
Neospora caninum is an intracellular parasite which causes abortion in cattle worldwide. One problem in the validation of the different methods for demonstration of this parasite is the lack of an appropriate gold standard. To validate an immunostimulating complex (iscom) enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) used to detect antibodies to N. caninum, sera from 244 cattle in five Swedish dairy herds infected with N. caninum were analysed. The sera also were analysed by a standard indirect-fluorescent antibody test (IFAT). The results obtained by the two tests were compared using the Gibbs sampler. Gibbs sampling is a latent-class approach based on Bayesian statistics; neither test is assumed to be more correct in stating the true status of infection. The Gibbs sampler was run using both informative and non-informative prior probabilities. We also simulated different cut-offs in the iscom ELISA (providing data to inform selection of optimal cut-off values for different applications). The ELISA produced fewest incorrect test results over all at a cut-off value of 0.200. The sensitivity and specificity at this cut-off were 99 and 96%, respectively. The IFAT had a high specificity (99%) but a lower sensitivity (78%) than expected-confirming that the IFAT cannot be treated as a true gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity of the ELISA were presented in a two-graph receiver operating characteristic (TG-ROC) plot. Any cut-off between 0.150 and 0.300 will have both sensitivity and specificity greater than or equal to95%. Optical densities of less than or equal to0.150 and greater than or equal to0.550 (or greater than or equal to0.350) were suggested as limits to rule out and rule in infection, respectively. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:141 / 153
页数:13
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
Alenius S., 1997, Proceedings of the third ESVV symposium on pestivirus infections, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 19-20 September 1996., P162
[2]   Progress in the serodiagnosis of Neospora caninum infections of cattle [J].
Atkinson, R ;
Harper, PAW ;
Reichel, MP ;
Ellis, JT .
PARASITOLOGY TODAY, 2000, 16 (03) :110-114
[3]   An indirect enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) for demonstration of antibodies to Neospora caninum in serum and milk of cattle [J].
Bjorkman, C ;
Holmdahl, OJM ;
Uggla, A .
VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY, 1997, 68 (03) :251-260
[4]   Antibody responses of cows during an outbreak of neosporosis evaluated by indirect fluorescent antibody test and different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays [J].
Dubey, JP ;
Jenkins, MC ;
Adams, DS ;
McAllister, MM ;
AndersonSprecher, R ;
Baszler, TV ;
Kwok, OCH ;
Lally, NC ;
Bjorkman, C ;
Uggla, A .
JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY, 1997, 83 (06) :1063-1069
[5]  
Dubey JP, 1996, AM J VET RES, V57, P329
[6]  
Dubey JP, 1999, J AM VET MED ASSOC, V214, P1160
[7]  
DUBEY JP, 1988, J AM VET MED ASSOC, V192, P1269
[8]   Recent advances in Neospora and neosporosis [J].
Dubey, JP .
VETERINARY PARASITOLOGY, 1999, 84 (3-4) :349-367
[9]   Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests and disease prevalence when the true disease state is unknown [J].
Enoe, C ;
Georgiadis, MP ;
Johnson, WO .
PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2000, 45 (1-2) :61-81
[10]   Estimation of sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of two serologic tests for the detection of antibodies against Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae serotype 2 in the absence of a reference test (gold standard) [J].
Enoe, C ;
Andersen, S ;
Sorensen, V ;
Willeberg, P .
PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2001, 51 (3-4) :227-243