Key result
Using optimized cutoff levels, the IDEXX Influenza A Ab, IDEXX AI MultiS-Screen Ab, and IDVet ID Screen tests achieved sensitivities of 86%, 91%, and 95%, and specificities of 89%, 87%, and 79%.
Observational
Adjustment of manufacturer-recommended cutoff values optimizes the sensitivity and specificity of three commercial ELISAs for seroepidemiology studies of swine influenza.
Optimized cutoffs improve ELISA performance for influenza A serology; leaves open routine adoption pending prospective validation.
The reverse zoonotic transmission of the pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza virus to swine necessitates enhanced surveillance of swine for influenza virus infection. Using a well-characterized panel of naturally infected swine sera, we evaluated and optimized the performances of three commercially available competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), namely, the IDEXX Influenza A Ab test, IDEXX AI MultiS-Screen Ab test, and IDVet ID Screen influenza A antibody competition ELISA, for detecting influenza A virus-reactive antibodies in swine. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis suggests that adjustment of the manufacturer-recommended cutoff values optimizes the sensitivity and specificity of these assays, making them applicable for seroepidemiology studies of swine influenza. Using such optimized cutoff levels, the sensitivity and specificity of the IDEXX Influenza A Ab test were 86% and 89%, respectively; those for the IDEXX AI MultiS-Screen Ab test were 91% and 87%, respectively; and those for the IDVet ID Screen influenza A test were 95% and 79%, respectively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tse et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Influenza A virus infection in pigs. Three commercially available competitive ELISAs (IDEXX Influenza A Ab, IDEXX AI MultiS-Screen Ab, and IDVet ID Screen) was evaluated on Sensitivity and specificity using optimized cutoff levels. Using optimized cutoff levels, the IDEXX Influenza A Ab, IDEXX AI MultiS-Screen Ab, and IDVet ID Screen tests achieved sensitivities of 86%, 91%, and 95%, and specificities of 89%, 87%, and 79%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: