Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20205703›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2010

Spatial distribution and risk factors of Brucellosis in Iberian wild ungulates.

Pilar M Muñoz, Mariana Boadella, Maricruz Arnal, María J de Miguel, Miguel Revilla, David Martínez, Joaquín Vicente, Pelayo Acevedo, Alvaro Oleaga, Francisco Ruiz-Fons and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 166 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Hunting for Answers: AssessingPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Detection ofTransboundary and emerging diseases · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Eleven Years of Health Monitoring in Wild Boars (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  16. Serological and molecular prevalence ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  17. Diseases of Iberian ibex (European journal of wildlife research · 2023
    Review
  18. Stress Assessment of Wild Boar (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  19. Seroprevalence of camel brucellosis in Qatar.Tropical animal health and production · 2022
    Article
  20. Review

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Pilar M MuñozCentro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria del Gobierno de Aragón (CITA), Montañana, 930 50059, Zaragoza, Spain.
Mariana Boadella
Maricruz Arnal
María J de Miguel
Miguel Revilla
David Martínez
Joaquín Vicente
Pelayo Acevedo
Alvaro Oleaga
Francisco Ruiz-Fons
Clara M Marín
José M Prieto
José de la Fuente
Marta Barral
Montserrat Barberán
Daniel Fernández de Luco
José M Blasco
Christian Gortázar
Universidad de Zaragoza · ESGobierno de Aragón · ESConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas · ESEuskadiko Parke Teknologikoa · ESServicio Regional de Investigación y Desarrollo Agroalimentario · ESOklahoma State University · USUniversidad de Málaga · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of wildlife as a brucellosis reservoir for humans and domestic livestock remains to be properly established. The aim of this work was to determine the aetiology, apparent prevalence, spatial distribution and risk factors for brucellosis transmission in several Iberian wild ungulates.

methodsA multi-species indirect immunosorbent assay (iELISA) using Brucella S-LPS antigen was developed. In several regions having brucellosis in livestock, individual serum samples were taken between 1999 and 2009 from 2,579 wild bovids, 6,448 wild cervids and4,454 Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), and tested to assess brucellosis apparent prevalence. Strains isolated from wild boar were characterized to identify the presence of markers shared with the strains isolated from domestic pigs.

resultsMean apparent prevalence below 0.5% was identified in chamois (Rupicapra pyrenaica), Iberian wild goat (Capra pyrenaica), and red deer (Cervus elaphus). Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), fallow deer (Dama dama), mouflon (Ovis aries) and Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) tested were seronegative. Only one red deer and one Iberian wild goat resulted positive in culture, isolating B. abortus biovar 1 and B. melitensis biovar 1, respectively. Apparent prevalence in wild boar ranged from 25% to 46% in the different regions studied, with the highest figures detected in South-Central Spain. The probability of wild boar being positive in the iELISA was also affected by age, age-by-sex interaction, sampling month, and the density of outdoor domestic pigs. A total of 104 bacterial isolates were obtained from wild boar, being all identified as B. suis biovar 2. DNA polymorphisms were similar to those found in domestic pigs.

conclusionsIn conclusion, brucellosis in wild boar is widespread in the Iberian Peninsula, thus representing an important threat for domestic pigs. By contrast, wild ruminants were not identified as a significant brucellosis reservoir for livestock.

Indexed as

Disease ReservoirsAnimalsAnimals, WildBacterial Typing TechniquesBrucella abortusBrucella melitensisBrucella suisBrucellosisDNA FingerprintingEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayGenotypeGeographyHumansPolymorphism, GeneticPortugalRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID20205703
PMCPMC2841660
OpenAlexW2117181119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.