Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27549329›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2016

Systematic review of brucellosis in Kenya: disease frequency in humans and animals and risk factors for human infection.

J Njeru, G Wareth, F Melzer, K Henning, M W Pletz, R Heller, H Neubauer

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.0field-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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

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

20 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

J NjeruInstitute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Naumburger str. 96a, 07743, Jena, Germany. mwanikij@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7087-0576
G WarethInstitute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Naumburger str. 96a, 07743, Jena, Germany.
F MelzerInstitute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Naumburger str. 96a, 07743, Jena, Germany.
K HenningInstitute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Naumburger str. 96a, 07743, Jena, Germany.
M W PletzCenter for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, 07740, Jena, Germany.
R HellerInstitute for Molecular Cell Biology, Center for Molecular Biomedicine, Jena University Hospital, 07745, Jena, Germany.
H NeubauerInstitute of Bacterial Infections and Zoonoses, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Naumburger str. 96a, 07743, Jena, Germany.
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut · DEJena University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrucellosis is a debilitating zoonotic disease affecting humans and animals. A comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of literature and officially available data on animal and human brucellosis for Kenya are missing. The aim of the current review is to provide frequency estimates of brucellosis in humans, animals and risk factors for human infection, and help to understand the current situation in Kenya.

methodsA total of accessible 36 national and international publications on brucellosis from 1916 to 2016 were reviewed to estimate the frequency of brucellosis in humans and animals, and strength of associations between potential risk factors and seropositivity in humans in Kenya.

resultsThe conducted studies revealed only few and fragmented evidence of the disease spatial and temporal distribution in an epidemiological context. Bacteriological evidence revealed the presence of Brucella (B.) abortus and B. melitensis in cattle and human patients, whilst B. suis was isolated from wild rodents only. Similar evidence for Brucella spp infection in small ruminants and other animal species is unavailable. The early and most recent serological studies revealed that animal brucellosis is widespread in all animal production systems. The animal infection pressure in these systems has remained strong due to mixing of large numbers of animals from different geographical regions, movement of livestock in search of pasture, communal sharing of grazing land, and the concentration of animals around water points. Human cases are more likely seen in groups occupationally or domestically exposed to livestock or practicing risky social-cultural activities such as consumption of raw blood and dairy products, and slaughtering of animals within the homesteads. Many brucellosis patients are misdiagnosed and probably mistreated due to lack of reliable laboratory diagnostic support resulting to adverse health outcomes of the patients and routine disease underreporting. We found no studies of disease incidence estimates or disease control efforts.

conclusionThe risk for re-emergence and transmission of brucellosis is evident as a result of the co-existence of animal husbandry activities and social-cultural activities that promote brucellosis transmission. Well-designed countrywide, evidence-based, and multidisciplinary studies of brucellosis at the human/livestock/wildlife interface are needed. These could help to generate reliable frequency and potential impact estimates, to identify Brucella reservoirs, and to propose control strategies of proven efficacy.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimalsAnimals, DomesticAnimals, WildBrucellaBrucella abortusBrucella melitensisBrucellosisCattleCommunicable Diseases, EmergingHumansIncidenceKenyaRisk FactorsZoonosesB. abortusB. melitensisEpidemiologyKenyaSeroprevalence

Identifiers

PMID27549329
PMCPMC4994226
OpenAlexW2518034248

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.