ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2013
A literature review of laboratory-acquired brucellosis.
Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.
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
74 citing papers in PubMed, 160 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Brucellosis in the One Health Context: Gaps in Diagnosis, Control, and Global Epidemiology.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2026Review
- Laboratory-AcquiredPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Periprosthetic Joint Infection Caused byArthroplasty today · 2026Article
- A Review of Accidental Aerosol Generation in Laboratories and Laboratory-associated Infections.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2025Article
- Brucellosis in the omics era: integrative perspectives on Brucella genomic architecture, host-pathogen interactions, and disease dynamics.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Review
- A detailed review of bovine brucellosis.Open veterinary journal · 2025Review
- Pseudo-squared: Pseudomonas pseudo-outbreak lab investigation.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Brucellosis: Unveiling the complexities of a pervasive zoonotic disease and its global impacts.Open veterinary journal · 2024Review
- The Brief Case: Incidental finding ofJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Review
- Periprosthetic hip infections caused byThe Journal of international medical research · 2024Review
- Epidemiology of Pathogens Listed as Potential Bioterrorism Agents, the Netherlands, 2009‒2019.Emerging infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Change of Plans: Overview of Bacterial Taxonomy, Recent Changes of Medical Importance, and Potential Areas of Impact.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Review
- The Biosafety Research Road Map: The Search for Evidence to Support Practices in the Laboratory-Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2023Review
- Periprosthetic knee joint infection caused byWorld journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- NLRP6 Induces Lung Injury and Inflammation Early in Brucella and Influenza Coinfection.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Early diagnosis and treatment of acute brucellosis knee arthritis complicated by acute osteomyelitis: two cases report.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- The Retrospective on AtypicalMicroorganisms · 2022Review
- Activation of mucosal immunity as a novel therapeutic strategy for combating brucellosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Intratracheal inoculation results in Brucella-associated reproductive disease in male mouse and guinea pig models of infection.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
14 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brucellosis is a bacterial zoonotic disease which has been associated with laboratory-acquired infections. No recent reviews have addressed the characteristics of laboratory-acquired brucellosis (LAB). English-language literature was reviewed to identify reports of laboratory exposures to Brucella spp. and LAB cases between 1982 and 2007. Evaluation of 28 case reports identified 167 potentially exposed laboratory workers, of whom 71 had LAB. Nine reports were identified that summarized an additional 186 cases of LAB. Only 18 (11%) exposures were due to laboratory accidents, 147 (88%) exposures were due to aerosolization of organisms during routine identification activities, and the circumstances of 2 (1%) exposures were unknown. Brucella melitensis was the causative agent in 80% (135/167) of the exposures. Workers with high-risk exposures were 9.3 times more likely to develop LAB than workers with low-risk exposures (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 38.6; P < 0.0001); they were also 0.009 times likelier to develop LAB if they took antimicrobial PEP than if they did not (95% CI, 0 to 0.042; P < 0.0001). The median incubation period in case and summary reports was 8 weeks (range 1 to 40 weeks). Antimicrobial PEP is effective in preventing LAB. The incubation period may be used to identify appropriate serological and symptom surveillance time frames for exposed laboratory workers.
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.