Zanca radiograph may detect incomplete injury to the coracoclavicular ligaments associated with acromioclavicular disruption.

This research study aimed to evaluate the use of the milk leukocyte differential (MLD) to: (a) identify quarter milks that are culture-positive; and (b) characterize the milk leukocyte responses to specific groups of pathogens causing subclinical mastitis. The MLD measures the absolute number and relative percentage of inflammatory cells in milk samples. Using the MLD in two dairy herds (170 and 172 lactating cows, respectively), we studied all lactating cows with a most recent monthly Dairy Herd Improvement Association somatic cell count (SCC) >200 × 103 cells/ml. Quarter milk samples from 78 cows meeting study criteria were analysed by MLD and aseptically collected milk samples were subjected to microbiological culture (MC). Based upon automated instrument evaluation of the number and percentage of inflammatory cells in milk, samples were designated as either MLD-positive or - negative for subclinicial mastitis. Positive MC were obtained from 102/156 (65·4%) of MLD-positive milk samples, and 28/135 (20·7%) of MLD-negative milk samples were MC-positive. When MC was considered the gold standard for mastitis diagnosis, the calculated diagnostic Se of the MLD was 65·4% (IC95% = 57·4 to 72·8%) and the Sp was 79·3% (IC95% = 71·4 to 85·7%). Quarter milks positive on MC had higher absolute numbers of neutrophils, lymphocytes and macrophages, with higher neutrophils% and lymphocytes% but lower macrophages%. The Log10 (N/L) ratios were the most useful ratio to differentiate specific subclinical mastitis quarters from healthy quarters. Use of the MLD on cows with monthly composite SCC > 200 × 103 cells/ml for screening at quarter level identified quarters more likely to be culture-positive. In conclusion, the MLD can provide an analysis of mammary quarter status more detailed than provided by SCC alone; however, the MLD response to subclinical mastitis was not found useful to specifically identify the causative pathogen.

No abstract

No abstract

The authors would like to apologise for a mistake in the above-mentioned article by Gonçalves et al. Checking the data, it was found that the position of false-positive and false-negative results were accidently reversed when calculating sensitivity and specificity.The following errors have been noted:On the first page, in the abstract:'When MC was considered the gold standard for mastitis diagnosis, the calculated diagnostic Se of the MLD was 65·4% (IC 95% = 57·4 to 72·8%) and the Sp was 79·3% (IC 95% = 71·4 to 85·7%).' Should read:'When MC was considered the gold standard for mastitis diagnosis, the calculated diagnostic Se of the MLD was 78·5% (IC 95% = 70·4 to 85·2%) and the Sp was 66·5% (IC 95% = 58·6 to 73·7%).'On page 313, in the second column:'When MC was considered the gold standard for mastitis diagnosis, the calculated diagnostic Se of the MLD was 65·4% (IC 95% = 57·4 to 72·8%) and the Sp was 79·3% (IC 95% = 71·4% to 85·7%). Using MC results as the 'gold standard,' Se and Sp of the categorical instrument readout results (healthy or infected) based upon cut-offs ranging from 1-12 are shown in Fig. 2. Sensitivity progressively increased from a minimum of 50·4% at a user setting of 1 to a maximum of 71·3% at a setting of 12 (Fig. 2). Specificity progressively decreased from a maximum of 86·7% at user setting 1 to 66·7% at setting 12 (Fig. 2).' Should read:'When MC was considered the gold standard for mastitis diagnosis, the calculated diagnostic Se of the MLD was 78·5% (IC 95% = 70·4 to 85·2%) and the Sp was 66·5% (IC 95% = 58·6 to 73·7%). Using MC results as the 'gold standard,' Se and Sp of the categorical instrument readout results (healthy or infected) based upon cut-offs ranging from 1-12 are shown in Fig. 2. Sensitivity progressively decreased from a maximum of 95·4% at a user setting of 1 to a minimum of 47·7% at a setting of 12 (Fig. 2). Specificity progressively increased from a minimum of 24·2% at user setting 1 to 84·5% at setting 12 (Fig. 2).'On page 314, In Figure 2, the sensitivity and specificity results were accidently reversed, since the position of false-positive and false-negative results were mistakenly allocated in the 2 × 2 contingency table used for calculations.