<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Praud, A</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Durán-Ferrer, M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">David Fretin</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jaÿ, M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">O'Connor, M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stournara, A</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tittarelli, M</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">I Travassos Dias</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Garin-Bastuji, B</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evaluation of three competitive ELISAs and a fluorescence polarisation assay for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vet J</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vet. J.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Agglutination Tests</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Animals</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brucella</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brucellosis, Bovine</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cattle</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Complement Fixation Tests</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rose Bengal</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sensitivity and Specificity</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016 Oct</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">216</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38-44</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Bovine brucellosis is an infectious disease of worldwide public health and economic importance. The usual tests for the diagnosis of this disease include the Rose-Bengal test (RBT), complement fixation test (CFT), serum agglutination test (SAT) and indirect ELISA. New tests such as competitive ELISAs (C-ELISA) and fluorescence polarisation assay (FPA) have been developed. However, C-ELISA may correspond to different protocols and a wide variation may exist in their diagnostic performance. The aim of this study was to evaluate three commercially available C-ELISA kits (C-ELISA1-3) and FPA for the diagnosis of bovine brucellosis and compare test performance with RBT, CFT, indirect ELISA and FPA. Sera submitted to EU laboratories in 2011 from 5111 adult cattle were tested. Individual test sensitivities (Se) and specificities (Sp) were estimated. Threshold assessment using the receiver operating characteristic method was also performed. The most sensitive tests were FPA (99.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 97.9-100%), C-ELISA1 (98.4%; 95% CI, 97.0-99.8%) and RBT (97.7%; 95% CI, 95.9-99.3%). The most specific tests were CFT (99.98%; 95% CI, 99.93-100%), SAT (99.98%; 95% CI, 99.93-100%) and RBT (99.89%; 95% CI, 99.79-99.99%). Among the new tests, none of the three C-ELISA kits studied could be recommended as a single screening test because of their low specificity, especially when used in a herd. C-ELISA3 could not be recommended as confirmatory test on individual animals to determine whether false positive serological test results had occurred.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27687924?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record></records></xml>