Comparative Sensitivity Between Fecal Sedimentation And Fecal Antigen Elisa For Diagnosis Of Fasciola Infection In Cattle
Rattachement africain : my. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
The detection of Fasciola eggs in ruminant fecal samples typically occurs around 15 weeks post-infection during patent infections. The recent introduction of coproantigen ELISA (cELISA) diagnostics, which capture antigenic enzymes in fecal material, holds promise for monitoring Fasciola fecal egg count (FFEC) to implement control programs, particularly targeted treatments. This study compared two study groups, those with positive FFEC (FFEC+ve) and negative FFEC (FFEC-ve), to assess the sensitivity of Flukefinder sedimentation and a cELISA kit. This study reports that the coproantigen ELISA detection limit was 4.5 eggs per gram (epg) for a 100% positivity rate. Additionally, a moderate, statistically significant positive correlation (r²=0.716, p-value < 0.01) and an odds ratio of 1.96 (p-value < 0.01) were observed between FFEC and Fasciola coproantigen from cELISA. This implies that for every single unit increase in FFEC, there is a 96% likelihood of obtaining a higher optical density (OD) reading from the cELISA test. The results suggest that cELISA can complement fecal sedimentation tests, serving as a valuable tool for detecting cattle with high FFEC. This capability facilitates targeted treatment strategies, thereby aiding in the control and prevention of the spread of fasciolosis within the studied area.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparative Sensitivity Between Fecal Sedimentation And Fecal Antigen Elisa For Diagnosis Of Fasciola Infection In Cattle
- Date Crossref
- 12/02/2024
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.