IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179847.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating diagnostic tests for bovine tuberculosis in the southern part of Germany: A latent class analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Valerie-Beau Pucken
  • Gabriela Knubben-Schweizer
  • Dörte Döpfer
  • Andreas Groll
  • Angela Hafner-Marx
  • Stefan Hörmansdorfer
  • Carola Sauter-Louis
  • Reinhard K Straubinger
  • Pia Zimmermann
  • Sonja Hartnack

Abstract

Germany has been officially free of bovine tuberculosis since 1996. However, in the last years there has been an increase of bovine tuberculosis cases, particularly in the southern part of Germany, in the Allgäu region. As a consequence a one-time tuberculosis surveillance program was revisited with different premortal and postmortal tests. The aim of this paper was to estimate diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of the different tests used within this surveillance program. In the absence of a perfect test with 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity, thus in the absence of a gold standard, a Bayesian latent class approach with two different datasets was performed. The first dataset included 389 animals, tested with single intra-dermal comparative cervical tuberculin (SICCT) test, PCR and pathology; the second dataset contained 175 animals, tested with single intra-dermal cervical tuberculin (SICT) test, Bovigam® assay, pathology and culture. Two-way conditional dependencies were considered within the models. Additionally, inter-laboratory agreement (five officially approved laboratories) of the Bovigam® assay was assessed with Cohen's kappa test (21 blood samples). The results are given in posterior means and 95% credibility intervals. The specificities of the SICT test, SICCT test, PCR and pathology ranged between 75.8% [68.8–82.2%] and 99.0% [96.8–100%]. The Bovigam® assay stood out with a very low specificity (6.9% [3.6–11.1%]), though it had the highest sensitivity (95.7% [91.3–99.2%]). The sensitivities of the SICCT test, PCR, SICT test, pathology and culture varied from 57.8% [48.0–67.6%] to 88.9% [65.5–99.7%]. The prevalences were 19.8% [14.6–26.5%] (three-test dataset) and 7.7% [4.2–12.3%] (four-test dataset). Among all pairwise comparisons the highest agreement was 0.62 [0.15–1]). In conclusion, the specificity of the Bovigam® assay and the inter-laboratory agreement were lower than expected.

Suggested Citation

  • Valerie-Beau Pucken & Gabriela Knubben-Schweizer & Dörte Döpfer & Andreas Groll & Angela Hafner-Marx & Stefan Hörmansdorfer & Carola Sauter-Louis & Reinhard K Straubinger & Pia Zimmermann & Sonja Hart, 2017. "Evaluating diagnostic tests for bovine tuberculosis in the southern part of Germany: A latent class analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-17, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179847
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179847
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179847&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179847?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179847. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.