ReviewCroatian medical journal2010
Diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife.
Review in Croatian medical journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
131 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 366 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond Serology: A Meta-Analysis of Advancements in Molecular Detection of Brucella spp. in Seronegative Animals and Biological Samples.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of livestock brucellosis prevalence in Indonesia.The veterinary quarterly · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of immune responses toFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022Pooled it
- Prevalence, diagnosis, and manifestations of brucellosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Pooled it
- Brucellosis in wildlife in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of osteoarticular brucellosis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Pooled it
- Unveiling brucellosis risks in breeding herds: Case study on diagnostic failures and control gaps in South Africa.The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research · 2026Article
- Seroprevalence, associated risk factors, and molecular detection of Brucella spp. in cattle, sheep, goats and humans in Mvomero district, Morogoro, Tanzania.One health outlook · 2026Article
- Brucellosis Abattoir Surveillance Using Serology and Molecular Tests Among Livestock in Free State and Limpopo Provinces, South Africa.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- From tests to truth: A misclassification-aware machine learning framework for estimating brucellosis seroprevalence in wild canids.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Resilience of Belgian Cattle Farmers Towards Infectious Diseases Outbreaks.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Review
- Seroprevalence of Bovine Brucellosis in Cattle in District Bannu, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.Polish journal of microbiology · 2025Article
- Epidemiological baseline of Brucella spp. in South African wildlife.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Prevalence study in Cameroon identifies Brucella abortus as the endemic Brucella species in livestock.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests for Brucellosis in Humans and Animals: A Meta-Analytical Approach.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Risk Factors Associated with the Prevalence of Antibodies Against Brucellosis in Equids from Western Pará, Brazil.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Risk Assessment ofVeterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in Haryana, India: A Study Using Rose Bengal Plate Test and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Genome phylogenetic analysis of Brucella melitensis in Northwest China.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe and discuss the merits of various direct and indirect methods applied in vitro (mainly on blood or milk) or in vivo (allergic test) for the diagnosis of brucellosis in animals.
methodsThe recent literature on brucellosis diagnostic tests was reviewed. These diagnostic tests are applied with different goals, such as national screening, confirmatory diagnosis, certification, and international trade. The validation of such diagnostic tests is still an issue, particularly in wildlife. The choice of the testing strategy depends on the prevailing brucellosis epidemiological situation and the goal of testing.
resultsMeasuring the kinetics of antibody production after Brucella spp. infection is essential for analyzing serological results correctly and may help to predict abortion. Indirect ELISAs help to discriminate 1) between false positive serological reactions and true brucellosis and 2) between vaccination and infection. Biotyping of Brucella spp. provides valuable epidemiological information that allows tracing an infection back to the sources in instances where several biotypes of a given Brucella species are circulating. Polymerase chain reaction and new molecular methods are likely to be used as routine typing and fingerprinting methods in the coming years.
conclusionThe diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife is complex and serological results need to be carefully analyzed. The B. abortus S19 and B. melitensis Rev. 1 vaccines are the cornerstones of control programs in cattle and small ruminants, respectively. There is no vaccine available for pigs or for wildlife. In the absence of a human brucellosis vaccine, prevention of human brucellosis depends on the control of the disease in animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.