Systematic Review of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Haptoglobin, Serum Amyloid A, and Fibrinogen versus Clinical Reference Standards for the Diagnosis of Bovine Respiratory Disease. (3rd June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Abdallah, A.; Hewson, J.; Francoz, D.; Selim, H.; Buczinski, S.
• Is Part Of: Journal of veterinary internal medicine. Volume 30:Number 4(2016:Jul./Aug.)
• Page Start: 1356
• Page End: 1368
• Publication Date: 2016-06-03
• Subjects: Bias -- Gold standard -- Quality assessment -- Sensitivity -- Specificity; Veterinary medicine -- Periodicals; 636.0896
• DOI: 10.1111/jvim.13975
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0891-6640

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is a worldwide animal health concern especially in feedlot, dairy, and veal calves. One of the greatest challenges is the absence of a gold standard for achieving an accurate antemortem diagnosis. Various blood markers, including the acute‐phase proteins (AAP), have been proposed as potential valuable tools for BRD diagnosis. Objectives: To perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the accuracy of selected APP (haptoglobin [Hp], serum amyloid A [SAA], and fibrinogen [Fb]) as diagnostic tools for cattle with naturally occurring BRD when compared with clinical reference standards of diagnosis. Methods: This review was performed with eligible studies selected from CAB Abstract and MEDLINE from 1946 to 2015, as well as the "gray literature." Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS‐2 tool developed for diagnostic accuracy studies. The accuracy parameters sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) were obtained from the articles or through contact with the authors when not directly reported. Results: A total of 314 studies were identified, from them, 23 met inclusion criteria as diagnostic studies for naturally occurring BRD. Quality of studies showed high risk of bias for case selection (70% of articles) and unclear risk of bias for index test (65%), reference standard (74%), and flow and timing (61%). There were high concerns regarding applicability for case selection (61% of studies) and reference standards used for defining BRD (48%). The concerns regarding index test application were low (83% of the studies). Only 4–8 studies could be included in the meta‐analysis for each APP. No pooled estimates or pooled accuracy measurements were performed due to the low number of studies and multiple differences between studies, including reference standard definitions. Conclusions and Clinical Importance: On the basis of these findings, it is not possible to make conclusions regarding the accuracy of APP for BRD diagnosis. The reporting of accuracy of APP for BRD detection is inconsistent among studies. Recommendations to improve capability for future meta‐analyses in this area include reporting studies on diagnostic tests following the Standard for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), as well as trying to standardize BRD definition across future studies.