Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Bayesian evaluation of three serological tests for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh

  • A. K. M. A. Rahman (a1) (a2) (a3), S. Smit (a2), B. Devleesschauwer (a4), P. Kostoulas (a5), E. Abatih (a6), C. Saegerman (a3), M. Shamsuddin (a7), D. Berkvens (a2), N. K. Dhand (a8) and M. P. Ward (a8)...

Abstract

We evaluated the performance of three serological tests – an immunoglobulin G indirect enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (iELISA), a Rose Bengal test and a slow agglutination test (SAT) – for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh. Cattle sera (n = 1360) sourced from Mymensingh district (MD) and a Government owned dairy farm (GF) were tested in parallel. We used a Bayesian latent class model that adjusted for the conditional dependence among the three tests and assumed constant diagnostic accuracy of the three tests in both populations. The sensitivity and specificity of the three tests varied from 84.6% to 93.7%, respectively. The true prevalences of bovine brucellosis in MD and the GF were 0.6% and 20.4%, respectively. Parallel interpretation of iELISA and SAT yielded the highest negative predictive values: 99.9% in MD and 99.6% in the GF; whereas serial interpretation of both iELISA and SAT produced the highest positive predictive value (PPV): 99.9% in the GF and also high PPV (98.9%) in MD. We recommend the use of both iELISA and SAT together and serial interpretation for culling and parallel interpretation for import decisions. Removal of brucellosis positive cattle will contribute to the control of brucellosis as a public health risk in Bangladesh.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Bayesian evaluation of three serological tests for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Bayesian evaluation of three serological tests for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Bayesian evaluation of three serological tests for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: M. P. Ward, E-mail: michael.ward@sydney.edu.au

Footnotes

Hide All
*

The first four authors contributed equally.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1.FAO (2006) WHO, Brucellosis in humans and animals. Food and Agriculture Organization. Available at http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/Brucellosis.pdf (Accessed October 2017).
2.Seleem, MN, Boyle, SM and Sriranganathan, N (2010) Brucellosis: a re-emerging zoonosis. Veterinary Microbiology 140, 392398.
3.De Massis, F et al. (2005) Correlation between animal and human brucellosis in Italy during the period 1997–2002. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 11, 632636.
4.Zinsstag, J et al. (2007) Human benefits of animal interventions for zoonosis control. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13, 527531.
5.Pappas, G et al. (2006) The new global map of human brucellosis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 6, 9199.
6.Rahman, AKMA et al. (2017) Brucella abortus is prevalent in both humans and animals in Bangladesh. Zoonoses and Public Health 64, 394399.
7.Islam, A et al. (1983) Economic losses due to brucellosis among cattle in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Veterinary Journal 17, 5762.
8.Islam, MA et al. (2013) A review of Brucella seroprevalence among humans and animals in Bangladesh with special emphasis on epidemiology, risk factors and control opportunities. Veterinary Microbiology 166, 317326.
9.Ahasan, MS et al. (2016) Bovine and caprine brucellosis in Bangladesh: Bayesian evaluation of four serological tests, true prevalence, and associated risk factors in household animals. Tropical Animal Health and Production 49, 111.
10.Greiner, M and Gardner, I (2000) Epidemiologic issues in the validation of veterinary diagnostic tests. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 45, 322.
11.McDermott, J, Grace, D and Zinsstag, J (2013) Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Revue Scientifique Et Technique 32, 249261.
12.Alton, G et al. (1988) Techniques for the Brucellosis Laboratory. Paris, France: INRA, pp. 112189.
13.Arif, S et al. (2018) Evaluation of three serological tests for diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in smallholder farms in Pakistan by estimating sensitivity and specificity using Bayesian latent class analysis. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 149, 2128.
14.Black, MA and Craig, BA (2002) Estimating disease prevalence in the absence of a gold standard. Statistics in Medicine 21, 26532669.
15.Cringoli, G et al. (2002) A cross-sectional coprological survey of liver flukes in cattle and sheep from an area of the southern Italian Apennines. Veterinary Parasitology 108, 137143.
16.Dohoo, I, Martin, W and Stryhn, H (2009) Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Charlottetown, Canada: AVC Inc.
17.Pourhoseingholi, MA, Vahedi, M and Rahimzadeh, M (2013) Sample size calculation in medical studies. Gastroenterology and Hepatology from Bed to Bench 6, 1417.
18.Bennett, S et al. (1991) A simplified general method for cluster-sample surveys of health in developing countries. World Health Statistics Quarterly 44, 98106.
19.Otte, MJ and Gumm, ID (1997) Intra-cluster correlation coefficients of twenty infections calculated from the results of cluster-sample surveys. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 31, 147150.
20.Godfroid, J, Nielsen, K and Saegerman, C (2010) Diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife. Croatian Medical Journal 51, 296–230.
21.Limet, J et al. (1988) Le diagnostic serologique de la brucellose bovine par ELISA. Annaes De Medecine Veterinaire 132, 565575.
22.Rahman, AKMA et al. (2012) Seroprevalence and risk factors for brucellosis in a high-risk group of individuals in Bangladesh. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 9, 190197.
23.Rahman, AKMA (2015) Epidemiology of brucellosis in humans and domestic ruminants in Bangladesh (PhD thesis). 20 Boulevard de Colonster, The University of Liege, Liege, Belgium, 189 pp.
24.Smit, S (2013) Bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh: Estimation of true prevalence and diagnostic test-characteristics (Master thesis). Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium.
25.Garin, B, Trap, D and Gaumont, R (1985) Assessment of the EDTA seroagglutination test for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Veterinary Record 117, 444445.
26.Shey-Njila, O et al. (2005) Serological survey of bovine brucellosis in Cameroon. The Revue d’élevage et Médecine Vétérinaire des Pays Tropicaux 58, 139143.
27.Spiegelhalter, D et al. (2007) OpenBUGS user manual, version 3.0. 2. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge.
28.Berkvens, D et al. (2006) Estimating disease prevalence in a Bayesian framework using probabilistic constraints. Epidemiology 17, 145153.
29.Hui, SL and Walter, SD (1980) Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics 36, 167171.
30.Gardner, IA et al. (2000) Conditional dependence between tests affects the diagnosis and surveillance of animal diseases. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 45, 107122.
31.Kostoulas, P et al. (2017) STARD-BLCM: standards for the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies that use Bayesian Latent Class Models. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 138, 3747.
32.Kostoulas, P et al. (2006) Application of a semi-dependent latent model in the Bayesian estimation of the sensitivity and specificity of two faecal culture methods for diagnosis of paratuberculosis in sub-clinically infected Greek dairy sheep and goats. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 76(1-2), 121134.
33.Abernethy, D et al. (2012) Field trial of six serological tests for bovine brucellosis. The Veterinary Journal 191, 364370.
34.Harbord, RM and Whiting, P (2009) Metandi: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. Stata Journal 9, 211.
35.Van Aert, A et al. (1984) A comparative study of ELISA and other methods for the detection of Brucella antibodies in bovine sera. Veterinary Microbiology 10, 1321.
36.Dohoo, I et al. (1986) A comparison of five serological tests for bovine brucellosis. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 50, 485493.
37.Uzal, FA et al. (1995) Evaluation of an indirect ELISA for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 7, 473475.
38.Samartino, L et al. (1999) Validation of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Veterinary Microbiology 70, 193200.
39.Saegerman, C et al. (2004) Evaluation of three serum i-ELISAs using monoclonal antibodies and protein G as peroxidase conjugate for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Veterinary Microbiology 100, 91105.
40.Dajer, A et al. (1999) Evaluation of a fluorescence-polarization assay for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Mexico. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 40, 6773.
41.Mainar-Jaime, RC et al. (2005) Specificity dependence between serological tests for diagnosing bovine brucellosis in Brucella-free farms showing false positive serological reactions due to Yersinia enterocolitica O: 9. Canadian Veterinary Journal 46, 913916.
42.Muma, JB et al. (2007) Risk factors for brucellosis in indigenous cattle reared in livestock-wildlife interface areas of Zambia. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 80, 306317.
43.Stemshorn, B et al. (1985) A comparison of standard serological tests for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis in Canada. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 49, 391394.
44.Lord, V, Rolo, M and Cherwonogrodzky, J (1989) Evaluation of humoral immunity to Brucella sp. in cattle by use of an agar-gel immunodiffusion test containing a polysaccharide antigen. American Journal of Veterinary Research 50, 18131816.
45.Devleesschauwer, B et al. (2015) Package ‘prevalence’: Tools for prevalence assessment studies, R package version 0.4.0.
46.Gelman, A and Rubin, DB (1992) Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7, 457472.
47.Anon (2007) National livestock development policy. Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Available at http://www.dls.gov.bd/files/LivestockPolicyFinal.pdf (Accessed October 2017).
48.Lopes, L, Nicolino, R and Haddad, J (2010) Brucellosis- risk factors and prevalence: a review. The Open Veterinary Science Journal 4, 7284.
49.Godfroid, J et al. (2004) Infectious Diseases of Livestock. UK, Oxford University Press.
50.Al-Majali, AM et al. (2009) Seroprevalence and risk factors for bovine brucellosis in Jordan. Journal of Veterinary Science 10, 6165.
51.Hegazy, Y, Ridler, A and Guitian, F (2009) Assessment and simulation of the implementation of brucellosis control programme in an endemic area of the Middle East. Epidemiology and Infection 137, 14361448.
52.Chiebao, DP et al. (2013) Variables Associated with Infections of Cattle by Brucella abortus, Leptospira spp. and Neospora spp. in Amazon Region in Brazil. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 62, e30e36.
53.Olsen, S and Tatum, F (2010) Bovine brucellosis. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice 26, 1527.
54.Ariza, J et al. (2007) Perspectives for the treatment of brucellosis in the 21st century: the Ioannina recommendations. PLoS Medicine 27, e317.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Rahman et al. supplementary material
Rahman et al. supplementary material 1

 Unknown (51 KB)
51 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed