↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic performance of ELISA, IFAT and Western blot for the detection of anti-Leishmania infantum antibodies in cats using a Bayesian analysis without a gold standard

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic performance of ELISA, IFAT and Western blot for the detection of anti-Leishmania infantum antibodies in cats using a Bayesian analysis without a gold standard
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13071-017-2046-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Flaminia Persichetti, Laia Solano-Gallego, Angela Vullo, Marisa Masucci, Pierre Marty, Pascal Delaunay, Fabrizio Vitale, Maria Grazia Pennisi

Abstract

Anti-Leishmania antibodies are increasingly investigated in cats for epidemiological studies or for the diagnosis of clinical feline leishmaniosis. The immunofluorescent antibody test (IFAT), the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and western blot (WB) are the serological tests more frequently used. The aim of the present study was to assess diagnostic performance of IFAT, ELISA and WB to detect anti-L. infantum antibodies in feline serum samples obtained from endemic (n = 76) and non-endemic (n = 64) areas and from cats affected by feline leishmaniosis (n = 21) by a Bayesian approach without a gold standard. Cut-offs were set at 80 titre for IFAT and 40 ELISA units for ELISA. WB was considered positive in presence of at least a 18 KDa band. Statistical analysis was performed through a written routine with MATLAB software in the Bayesian framework. The latent data and observations from the joint posterior were simulated in the Bayesian approach by an iterative Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique using the Gibbs sampler for estimating sensitivity and specificity of the three tests. The median seroprevalence in the sample used for evaluating the performance of tests was estimated at 0.27 [credible interval (CI) = 0.20-0.34]. The median sensitivity of the three different methods was 0.97 (CI: 0.86-1.00), 0.75 (CI: 0.61-0.87) and 0.70 (CI: 0.56-0.83) for WB, IFAT and ELISA, respectively. Median specificity reached 0.99 (CI: 0.96-1.00) with WB, 0.97 (CI: 0.93-0.99) with IFAT and 0.98 (CI: 0.94-1.00) with ELISA. IFAT was more sensitive than ELISA (75 vs 70%) for the detection of subclinical infection while ELISA was better for diagnosing clinical leishmaniosis when compared with IFAT (98 vs 97%). The overall performance of all serological techniques was good and the most accurate test for anti-Leishmania antibody detection in feline serum samples was WB.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 32 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 26 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 41 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,090,536
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#648
of 5,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,216
of 308,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#15
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.