JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Waldner, C.
Right arrow Articles by Campbell,
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Waldner, C.
Right arrow Articles by Campbell, , JR
Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, Vol 16, Issue 4, 313-315
Copyright © 2004 by American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians


Evaluation Studies

Agreement between three serological tests for Neospora caninum in beef cattle

CL Waldner, G Cunningham, and Campbell JR

Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

During 1999, serum samples were collected from beef cows on pastures in western Canada. Some of the herds had a history of confirmed abortions associated with Neospora caninum infection. All these samples were initially analyzed using a single application of 1 common commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for antibodies to N. caninum. From these initial results, 239 positive and 250 negative samples were randomly selected for further testing. This group of samples was retested using the 3 commercially available ELISA tests for N. caninum as per the manufacturer's recommendations. The agreement between 2 of the ELISAs was good (K = 0.76); agreement of these 2 tests with the third test was much lower (K = 0.46 and 0.60). Quantitative agreement between tests measured by intraclass correlation coefficients was also acceptable between the first 2 tests but was almost zero when the first 2 tests were compared with the third. This information is necessary to understand the differences in seroprevalence reported in different regions from laboratories using different methods.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.