3.8 Article

Sensitivity and specificity of western blot testing of cerebrospinal fluid and serum for diagnosis of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis in horses with and without neurologic abnormalities

Journal

Publisher

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.2002.221.1007

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-To determine sensitivity and specificity of western blot testing (WBT) of CSF and serum for diagnosis of equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM) in horses with and without neurologic abnormalities. Design-Prospective investigation. Animals-65 horses with and 169 horses without neurologic abnormalities. Procedure-CSF and serum from horses submitted for necropsy were tested for Sarcocystis neurona-specific antibody with a WBT. Results of postmortem examination were used as the gold standard against which results of the WBT were compared. Results-Sensitivity of WBT of CSF was 87% for horses with and 88% for horses without neurologic abnormalities. Specificity of WBT of CSF was 44% for horses with and 60% for horses without neurologic abnormalities. Regardless of whether horses did or did not have neurologic abnormalities, sensitivity and specificity of WBT of serum were not significantly different from values for WBT of CSF Ninety-four horses without EPM had histologic evidence of slight CNS inflammation. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-The low specificity of WBT of CSF indicated that it is inappropriate to diagnose EPM on the basis of a positive test result alone because of the possibility of false-positive test results. The high sensitivity, however, means that a negative result is useful in ruling out EPM. There was no advantage in testing CSF versus serum in horses without neurologic abnormalities. Slight CNS inflammation was common in horses with and without S neurona-specific antibodies in the CSF and should not be considered an indication of CNS infection with S neurona.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available