Sensitivity analysis of serological tests for detection of disease in cattle

소 질병 검출을 위한 혈청학적 검사의 민감도 평가

  • Lee, Sang-Jin (National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service) ;
  • Moon, Oun-Kyong (National Veterinary Research and Quarantine Service) ;
  • Pak, Son-Il (School of Veterinary Medicine and Institute of Veterinary Science, Kangwon National University)
  • 이상진 (국립수의과학검역원) ;
  • 문운경 (국립수의과학검역원) ;
  • 박선일 (강원대학교 수의학부대학 및 동물의학종합연구소)
  • Accepted : 2010.03.10
  • Published : 2010.03.30

Abstract

Animal disease surveillance system, defined as the continuous investigation of a given population to detect the occurrence of disease or infection for control purposes, has been key roles to assess the health status of an animal population and, more recently, in international trade of animal and animal products with regard to risk assessment. Especially, for a system aiming to determine whether or not a disease is present in a population sensitivity of the system should be maintained high enough not to miss an infected animal. Therefore, when planning the implementation of surveillance system a number of factors that affecting surveillance sensitivity should be taken into account. Of these parameters sample size is of important, and different approaches are used to calculate sample size, usually depending on the objective of surveillance systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of the current national serological surveillance programs for four selected bovine diseases assuming a specified sampling plan, to examine factors affecting the probability of detection, and to provide sample sizes required for achieving surveillance goal of detecting at least an infection in a given population. Our results showed that, for example, detecting low level of prevalence (0.2% for bovine tuberculosis) requires selection of all animals per typical Korean cattle farm (n = 17), and thus risk-based target surveillance for high risk groups can be an alternative strategy to increase sensitivity while not increasing overall sampling efforts. The minimum sample size required for detecting at least one positive animal was sharply increased as the disease prevalence is low. More importantly, high reliability of prevalence estimation was expected with increased sampling fraction even when zero-infected animal was identified. The effect of sample size is also discussed in terms of the maximum prevalence when zero-infected animals were identified and on the probability of failure to detect an infection. We suggest that for many serological surveillance systems, diagnostic performance of the testing method, sample size, prevalence, population size, and statistical confidence need to be considered to correctly interpret results of the system.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 국립수의과학검역원

References

  1. 국립수의과학검역원. '09년 1/4분기 가축전염병중앙예찰협의회 자료. pp. 26-29, 국립수의과학검역원, 안양, 2009
  2. 국립수의과학검역원. '07년 2/4분기 가축전염병중앙 예찰협의회 자료. pp. 53-62, 국립수의과학검역원, 안양, 2007
  3. 조윤상. 국내 소결핵의 발생 및 연구동향. 한국수의공중보건학회지 2007, 31, 61-67
  4. Cameron A, Gardner I, Doherr MG, Wagner B. Sampling considerations in surveys and monitoring and surveillance systems. In: Salman MD (ed.). Animal Disease Surveillance and Survey Systems: Methods and Applications. pp. 47-66, Blackwell, Ames, 2003
  5. Cannon RM. Sense and sensitivity designing surveys based on an imperfect test. Prev Vet Med 2001, 49, 141-163 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5877(01)00184-2
  6. Cannon RM, Roe RT. Livestock Disease Surveys: A Field Manual for Veterinarians. pp. 14-17, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1982
  7. Collins MT, Sockett DC, Ridge S, Cox JC. Evaluation of a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for Johne's disease. J Clin Microbiol 1991, 29, 272-276
  8. Collins MT, Wells SJ, Petrini KR, Collins JE, Schultz RD, Whitlock RH. Evaluation of five antibody detection tests for diagnosis of bovine paratuberculosis. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2005, 12, 685-692
  9. Doherr MG, Audigé L. Monitoring and surveillance for rare health-related events: a review from the veterinary perspective. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2001, 356, 1097-1106 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0898
  10. Francis J, Seiler RJ, Wilkie IW, O'Boyle D, Lumsden MJ, Frost AJ. The sensitivity and specificity of various tuberculin tests using bovine PPD and other tuberculins. Vet Rec 1978, 103, 420-425 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.103.19.420
  11. Monaghan ML, Doherty ML, Collins JD, Kazda JF, Quinn PJ. The tuberculin test. Vet Microbiol 1994, 40, 111-124 https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-1135(94)90050-7
  12. Monke DR, Rohde RF, Hueston WD, Milburn RJ. Estimation of the sensitivity and specificity of the agar gel immunodiffusion test for bovine leukemia virus: 1,296 cases (1982-1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992, 200, 2001-2004
  13. Morignat E, Ducrot C, Roy P, Baron T, Vinard JL, Biacabe AG, Madec JY, Bencsik A, Debeer S, Eliazsewicz M, Calavas D. Targeted surveillance to assess the prevalence of BSE in high-risk populations in western France and the associated risk factors. Vet Rec 2002, 151, 73-77 https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.151.3.73
  14. Morris RS. Information systems for animal health: objectives and components. Rev Sci Tech 1991, 10, 13-23 https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.10.1.537
  15. Stärk KD, Regula G, Hernandez J, Knopf L, Fuchs K, Morris RS, Davies P. Concepts for risk-based surveillance in the field of veterinary medicine and veterinary public health: review of current approaches. BMC Health Serv Res 2006, 6, 20 https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-20
  16. Sweeney RW, Whitlock RH, Buckley CL, Spencer P, Rosenberger AE, Hutchinson LJ. Diagnosis of paratuberculosis in dairy cattle, using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of antibodies against Mycobacterium paratuberculosis in milk. Am J Vet Res 1994, 55, 905-909
  17. Thurmond MC. Conceptual foundations for infectious disease surveillance. J Vet Diagn Invest 2003, 15, 501-514 https://doi.org/10.1177/104063870301500601
  18. Trono KG, Pérez-Filgueira DM, Duffy S, Borca MV, Carrillo C. Seroprevalence of bovine leukemia virus in dairy cattle in Argentina: comparison of sensitivity and specificity of different detection methods. Vet Microbiol 2001, 83, 235-248 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1135(01)00420-5