A reliable method using the cytobrush for diagnosis of subclinical endometritis in dairy cattle during the late lactational period
Animal Reproduction Science, ISSN: 0378-4320, Vol: 235, Page: 106891
2021
- 2Citations
- 15Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations2
- Citation Indexes2
- CrossRef2
- Captures15
- Readers15
- 15
Article Description
This experiment was performed to assess reliability of the cytobrush–cytology method (CCM) in diagnosis of subclinical endometritis (SCE) using the biopsy–histopathology method (BHM) as a reference in late lactating dairy cows. Reproductive organs were collected from 115 slaughtered multiparous crossbred cows culled due to infertility 398 ± 135 days subsequent to parturition. Samples were collected from the dorsal part of the corpus uteri for analyses. Inflammation status was graded histopathologically based on the cell percentages [(neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes (LYM), macrophages (MAC), and plasma cells)]. Data were subjected to Friedman’s test for group comparisons (method and diagnosis), concordance correlation and chi–square tests for consistency of results among methods, and the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis for reliability of the CCM. Percentages of LYM (2.67x) and MAC (3.00x) were greater when evaluated using BHM than with CCM ( P < 0.05 for both). The agreement (Cohen’s κ value) of results among methods was 0.79 ± 0.06. The sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the CCM for defining endometrial inflammation were 79.3% and 100%, respectively. Among inflammatory cells, proportions of LYM and MAC in the CCM had merit for evaluation of uterine inflammation, with an Se of 74.1 and 84.5 and an Sp of 93.0 and 75.4 at the cut–off > 4 and > 0, respectively. The results indicate the CCM may be used in the diagnosis of SCE when the LYM and MAC percentages are considered in chronically infertile cows in the later stages of the lactational period.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378432021002062; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2021.106891; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85120935823&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34863068; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378432021002062; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2021.106891
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know