Cross-Sectional Study and Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods ofBovine Tuberculosis in Gondar Elfora Abattoir, Ethiopia

A. Worku, S. Abreham, Merry Hailu, G. Mamo, G. Ameni, Solomon Tsegaye
{"title":"Cross-Sectional Study and Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods ofBovine Tuberculosis in Gondar Elfora Abattoir, Ethiopia","authors":"A. Worku, S. Abreham, Merry Hailu, G. Mamo, G. Ameni, Solomon Tsegaye","doi":"10.4172/2161-1068.1000218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The prevalence of bovine tuberculosis is high in developing countries due to lack of awareness, good diagnostic methods and prevention strategies. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis and compare the efficacy of different procedures of diagnosis. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted at Gondar Elfora abattoir from December, 2005 to June, 2006. To this effect, comparison has been made between the detailed postmortem examination and routine meat inspection procedures with gold standard culture result. Result: Out of 402 animals examined at slaughter, 15.9% were diagnosed with gross tuberculous lesions by detailed laboratory examination. Routine abattoir inspection detected only 2.9% of the tuberculous cattle. From 64 cattle considered tuberculous, 10 show growth in Lowenstein-Jensen. The average number of lesions per infected cattle was 1.6% and 55.5% of cattle with tuberculous lesions possessed single lesion. All the traits (including sex, age and body condition score) measured in relation to tuberculous lesions did not show a statistically significant difference among the categories. The sensitivity of routine meat inspection was 18.8% with detailed postmortem examination and 30% with culture in comparison with 83.3% specificity. There was a poor agreement (k=0.18) between routine meat inspection and detailed postmortem examination procedures. Similarly, a poor agreement (k=0.12) was obtained between routine meat inspection procedure and culture result. Conclusion: Relatively higher prevalence was recorded, and there is a need to improve the sensitivity of routine abattoir inspection procedures to diagnose tuberculous.","PeriodicalId":74235,"journal":{"name":"Mycobacterial diseases : tuberculosis & leprosy","volume":"6 1","pages":"0-0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4172/2161-1068.1000218","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mycobacterial diseases : tuberculosis & leprosy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-1068.1000218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of bovine tuberculosis is high in developing countries due to lack of awareness, good diagnostic methods and prevention strategies. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis and compare the efficacy of different procedures of diagnosis. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted at Gondar Elfora abattoir from December, 2005 to June, 2006. To this effect, comparison has been made between the detailed postmortem examination and routine meat inspection procedures with gold standard culture result. Result: Out of 402 animals examined at slaughter, 15.9% were diagnosed with gross tuberculous lesions by detailed laboratory examination. Routine abattoir inspection detected only 2.9% of the tuberculous cattle. From 64 cattle considered tuberculous, 10 show growth in Lowenstein-Jensen. The average number of lesions per infected cattle was 1.6% and 55.5% of cattle with tuberculous lesions possessed single lesion. All the traits (including sex, age and body condition score) measured in relation to tuberculous lesions did not show a statistically significant difference among the categories. The sensitivity of routine meat inspection was 18.8% with detailed postmortem examination and 30% with culture in comparison with 83.3% specificity. There was a poor agreement (k=0.18) between routine meat inspection and detailed postmortem examination procedures. Similarly, a poor agreement (k=0.12) was obtained between routine meat inspection procedure and culture result. Conclusion: Relatively higher prevalence was recorded, and there is a need to improve the sensitivity of routine abattoir inspection procedures to diagnose tuberculous.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
埃塞俄比亚Gondar Elfora屠宰场牛结核病不同诊断方法的横断面研究和比较
背景:由于缺乏认识、良好的诊断方法和预防策略,牛结核病在发展中国家的流行率很高。因此,本研究旨在估计牛结核病的患病率,并比较不同诊断程序的疗效。方法:2005年12月- 2006年6月在贡达尔埃尔福拉屠宰场进行横断面研究。为此,将详细的死后检验与常规的肉检验程序进行了金标准培养结果的比较。结果:402头屠宰检验的动物中,15.9%通过详细的实验室检查诊断为大体结核病变。常规屠宰场检查仅检出2.9%的牛患结核病。在64头被认为患有结核病的牛中,有10头在洛温斯坦-詹森地区出现了生长。每头感染牛的平均病灶数为1.6%,55.5%的结核病灶牛为单一病灶。与结核病变相关的所有特征(包括性别、年龄和身体状况评分)在类别之间没有统计学差异。常规肉类检查的灵敏度为18.8%,详细的死后检查为30%,而培养为83.3%。常规肉类检验和详细的死后检验程序之间的一致性很差(k=0.18)。同样,常规肉类检验程序和培养结果之间的一致性很差(k=0.12)。结论:该地区结核病患病率较高,需要提高常规屠宰场检查程序对结核病诊断的敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Study of white rot fungi for the production of laccase and its multifold application To Study The Effect of Pesticide Resistant Azotobacter spp. For The Production of Biofertilizer Inbred Mouse Strain Susceptibility to Tuberculosis Infection Vary with Phenotype, the Dose of Infection, Obesity and Composition of the Intestinal Microbiome Recombinant antigens and synthetic peptides to characterize Mycobacterium tuberculosis proteins for immunological reactivity The potential of delayed type hypersensitivity-inducing Mycobacterium tuberculosis-specific antigens in the diagnosis of tuberculosis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1