Background: In Uganda, detection of brucellosis in goats and humans is more frequently done using rose bengal plate test (RBPT) in comparison to other serological tests such as serum agglutination test (SAT) and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (i-ELISA).

Aim: This study aimed at estimating the degree of agreement, specificity and sensitivity of RBPT, SAT, and ELISA in brucellosis detection in human and goat samples.

Materials and Methods: An analytical study was conducted involving parallel testing of 425 goat samples and 177 human samples to compare RBPT, SAT, and i-ELISA tests of brucellosis detection.

Results: A seroprevalence of 14.82% in animals and 11.86% in humans was detected using RBPT, 7.06% in goats and 5.09% in humans using SAT, and 6.35% in humans and 4.52% in animals using i-ELISA. The degree of agreement between the three tests in humans and animals was compared using Fleiss' kappa statistics where a moderate agreement (MA) was obtained for both with kappa value 0.57 in animals and 0.51 in humans and p<0.001. Kappa values in animals were 0.52 (MA) for RBPT and i-ELISA, 0.61 (MA) for RBPT and SAT, and 0.82 substantial agreement (SA) for SAT and i-ELISA. The kappa values in humans were 0.52 (MA) for RBPT and i-ELISA, 0.57 (MA) for RBPT and SAT, and 0.82 (SA) for SAT and i-ELISA, respectively. The study revealed a significant agreement in the tests for all the three tests, but there was SA between SAT and i-ELISA in both animal and human samples. Sensitivity and specificity of RBT and SAT were estimated using i-ELISA as a gold standard as follows, in goats RBPT: 100 and 91% and SAT: 100 and 99%, respectively, and in humans RBPT: 100 and 92% and SAT: 88 and 99%, respectively.

Conclusion: It appears that RBPT is good as a screening test, whereas SAT and i-ELISA are good for diagnosis purposes or confirmatory test.

Keywords: brucellosis, indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, rose bengal plate test, serum agglutination test, Uganda.

1. Kakooza S, Tumwebaze M, Nabatta E, Byaruhanga J, Tayebwa DS, Wampande E. Risk factors and co-existence of infectious causes of reproductive failures in selected Uganda cattle and goats: A Brucella spps-Toxoplasma gondii study. Open Access Libr J 2018;5:1. [Crossref]

2. Bamaiyi PH. Prevalence and risk factors of brucellosis in man and domestic animals?: A review. Int J One Heal 2016;2:29-34. [Crossref]

3. Seleem MN, Boyle SM, Sriranganathan N. Brucellosis: A re-emerging zoonosis. Vet Microbiol 2010; 140:392-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]

4. Makita K, Fevre EM, Waiswa C, Eisler MC, Thrusfield M, Welburn SC. Herd prevalence of bovine brucellosis and analysis of risk factors in cattle in urban and peri-urban areas of the Kampala economic zone, Uganda. BMC Vet Res 2011; 7:60. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]

5. Gall D, Nielsen K. Serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis: A review of test performance and cost comparison. Rev Sci Tech 2004; 23:989-1002. [Crossref] [PubMed]

6. Mangalgi S, Sajjan A, Mohite S, Kakade S. Human brucellosis: Still an unfamiliar and misdiagnosed disease in India. J Krishna Inst Med Sci Univ 2015; 4:59-65.

7. Kumar A. Brucellosis: Need for public health intervention in rural India. Prilozi 2010; 31:219-31. [PubMed]

8. Mangen MJ, Otte J, Pfeiffer D, Chilonda P. Bovine Brucellosis in Sub-Saharan Africa: Estimation of Sero-prevalence and Impact on Meat and Milk Off-take Potential. FAO Livest Policy Discuss Pap No. 8, No. 8, p. 58; 2002.

9. Alton GG, Jones LM, Pietz DE. Laboratory techniques in brucellosis. Monogr Ser World Health Organ 1975; 55:1-63.

10. Omer MK, Skjerve E, MacMillan AP, Woldehiwet Z. Comparison of three serological tests in the diagnosis of Brucella infection in unvaccinated cattle in Eritrea. Prev Vet Med 2001;48:215-22. [Crossref]

11. Din AM, Khan SA, Ahmad I, Rind R, Hussain T, Shahid M, et al. A study on the seroprevalence of brucellosis in human and goat populations of district bhimber, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. J Anim Plant Sci 2013; 23:113-8.

12. Ghodasara SN, Roy A, Bhanderi BB. Comparison of rose bengal plate agglutination, standard tube agglutination and indirect ELISA tests for detection of Brucella antibodies in cows and buffaloes. Vet World 2010; 3:61-4.

13. Ingold T. Review article. J R Anthropol Inst 2014; 4:771-3. [Crossref]

14. Mantur B, Parande A, Amarnath S, Patil G, Walvekar R, Desai A, et al. ELISA versus conventional methods of diagnosing endemic brucellosis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2010; 83:314-8. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]

15. Rahman AK. Comparative evaluation of commercial serodiagnostic tests for the seroprevalence study of brucellosis in stray dogs in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J Vet Med 2011; 9:79-83.

16. Elshemey T, Abd-Elrahman A. Evaluation of a rapid immunochromatographic test for detection of Brucella abortus antibodies in Egyptian cattle sera and milk. Alexandria J Vet Sci 2014; 40:24-8. [Crossref]