Developing a local mastitis test like EMT is a great step forward. That said, I had a few questions about the methodology and interpretation:
i. Since SCC is considered the gold standard for subclinical mastitis detection, why was it only applied to a small subset of samples with discordant EMT and CMT results? Wouldn’t using SCC across all samples have provided a more unbiased and accurate assessment of EMT’s diagnostic performance?
ii. Given that CMT is not a perfect test, do you think using it as the main reference for calculating EMT’s sensitivity and specificity might have introduced bias into your estimates?
iii. Because EMT scoring relies on visual gel formation like CMT, how did you control for subjectivity? Were the scorers blinded to the sample identity or the test type? Was any inter-observer agreement testing done?
iv. Considering that one of the authors is also the developer of the EMT reagent, were there any steps taken to reduce potential bias during data collection or analysis?
v. Also, the study was conducted in a single urban area under specific conditions—do you think the findings would hold in different agro-ecological zones or among pastoralist herds?
vi. Finally, was any stability or reproducibility testing done for the EMT reagent (e.g., across batches or under different field conditions)? That seems critical for a field-deployable diagnostic tool.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! this is promising work, but I think these questions are important to address for broader validation and uptake.