From: Evidence-practice gap analysis in the role of tick in brucellosis transmission: a scoping review
Method | Â | Sen (%)/Spe (%) | Pros/Cons |
---|---|---|---|
Culturea | Lysis centrifugationa | Sen: NA Spe: 70.00–90.00% [19] | Pros: species-level identification and genotyping, antibiotic resistance detection; Cons: slow growth, laboratory safety issues, etc. [20] |
Bone marrow culture | Sen: NA Spe: 50.00–97.00% [19] | ||
Ruiz-Castañeda method | Sen: NA Spe: 30.00–80.00% [19] | ||
Serology | RBT | Sen: 92.00–98.90% Spe: > 99.00% [21] | Pros: diagnosis is based on the test results of two or more methods; simple and time-saving, large-scale testing [22]; Cons: species-specific identification is not rapid enough and requires immunological identification of infected animals [23] |
MRT | Sen: 80.00–86.60% Spe: 100.00% [24] | ||
ELISA | Sen: 96.60–100.00% Spe: 100.00% [21] | ||
FPA | Sen: 97.90% Spe: 96.10% [20] | ||
CFT | Sen: NA Spe: NA | ||
SAT | Sen: 80.40%–99.50% Spe: 97.90%–99.00% [25] | ||
Conventional PCRa | 16S rRNAa | Sen: 72.10% Spe: 100.00% [26] | Pros: fast, sensitive, accurate, and has a high safety factor; Cons: some factors inhibit DNA amplification, showing low sensitivity and thus false negative [27] |
Bscp31a | Sen: 92.72–98.30% Spe: 100.00% [28] | ||
IS711a | Sen: 100.00% Spe: 100.00% [28] | ||
Omp22a | Sen: NA Spe: NA | ||
Omp2 | Sen: 61.81% Spe: 100.00% [29] | ||
Multiplex-PCR | Omp31, Omp25b, WboA, RpsL, Bp26, etc | Sen: 85.38–94.11% Spe: 98.06–98.76% [30] | Pros: time-saving and labor-saving, suitable for large-scale detection and identification of Brucella species [31]; Cons: possible non-specific expansion, false positives |
Real-time PCR | Omp31 | Sen: 98.00% Spe: 100.00% [32] | Pros: high specificity, no need for gel electrophoresis, and can avoid contamination Cons: prone to form aerosol, non-specific expansion, false positives [33] |
Bscp31 | Sen: 91.90% Spe: 95.40% [34] | ||
Acetyl-CoA | Sen: NA Spe: 100.00% [35] | ||
Western blotting | Omp28 | Sen: 93.00–97.00% Spe: 98.00–99.00% [36] | Pros: facilitate the distinction between brucellosis and other infections caused by cross-reactive bacteria [37]; Cons: antibody production may be more affected by individual strains than bacterial species, so immunodominant protein expression may vary between in vitro and in vivo culture conditions [38] |
mNGSa | NA | Sen: 100.00% Spe: 90.00% | Pros: detection of rare, novel, and co-infected pathogens and also with advantages in resistance detection [39]; Cons: high cost, complex testing and interpretation, and slow turnaround time [40] |
LAMP | Omp25 | Sen: 100.00% Spe: 97.80% [32] | Pros: the reaction time is short, and the results are visualized for rapid detection [41] Cons: difficult primer design; prone to non-specific amplification or false positive [42] |
RPA | Bscp31 | Sen: NA Spe: 94.00% [43] | Pros: simple operation, fast response, low requirements on equipment [44] Cons: complicated and expensive and false positives |
Bp26 | Sen: 97.00% Spe: 94.90% [2] | ||
Omp31 | Sen: NA Spe: NA [45] |