Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27190804›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2016

Brucellosis in Occupationally Exposed Groups.

Smita S Mangalgi, Annapurna G Sajjan, Shivajirao T Mohite, Shivali Gajul

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Smita S MangalgiAssistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, BLDEU's Shri B M Patil Medical College , Bijapur, Karnataka, India .
Annapurna G SajjanProfessor, Department of Microbiology, BLDEU's Shri B M Patil Medical College , Bijapur, Karnataka, India .
Shivajirao T MohiteProfessor, Department of Microbiology, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences , Karad, Maharashtra, India .
Shivali GajulAssistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, BLDEU's Shri B M Patil Medical College , Bijapur, Karnataka, India .
Shri BM Patil Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn India, high incidence of human brucellosis may be expected, as the conditions conducive for human brucellosis exist. Limited studies have been undertaken on human brucellosis especially in occupationally-exposed groups.

aimTo estimate prevalence of anti-brucellar antibodies, evaluate the clinical manifestations, risk factors and Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) levels about brucellosis among occupationally exposed groups. MATERIALS AND

methodsBlood samples were collected from 2337 occupationally exposed individuals. The serum samples were screened for the presence of anti-brucellar antibodies by Rose Bengal Plate Test (RBPT), Serum Agglutination Test (SAT) and 2-Mercaptoethanol test (2-ME). Clinical manifestations, risk factors and KAP levels were evaluated by personal interview using a structured questionnaire.

resultsSeroprevalence of brucellosis by RBPT, SAT and 2-ME test was 9.46%, 4.45% and 3.64 % respectively. Clinical symptoms resembling brucellosis were seen in 91 subjects. The major risk factors were animal exposure in veterinarians and abattoirs, both animal exposure and raw milk ingestion in farmers and shepherds, exposure to raw milk and its ingestion in dairy workers and exposure to Brucella culture in laboratory workers. Except laboratory workers, few veterinarians and dairy workers none had heard about brucellosis. KAP levels regarding brucellosis were too poor in all the groups except laboratory workers.

conclusionBrucellosis most of the times was missed or misdiagnosed. Regular screenings for brucellosis and awareness programmes to increase KAP levels are necessary to control brucellosis in occupationally exposed groups.

Indexed as

2-MEHigh-risk groupKAPSATZoonosis

Identifiers

PMID27190804
PMCPMC4866102
OpenAlexW2374610100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.