ArticleEpidemiology and infection2016
Empirical Bayes estimation of farm prevalence adjusting for multistage sampling and uncertainty in test performance: a Brucella cross-sectional serostudy in southern Kazakhstan.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in pregnant women and livestock in the mainland of China: a systematic review and hierarchical meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2018Pooled it
- Camel milk is a neglected source of brucellosis among rural Arab communities.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional study of Q fever in Camels: Risk factors for infection, the role of small ruminants and public health implications for desert-dwelling pastoral communities.Zoonoses and public health · 2023Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimation of farm prevalence is common in veterinary research. Typically, not all animals within the farm are sampled, and imperfect tests are used. Often, assumptions about herd sizes and sampling proportions are made, which may be invalid in smallholder settings. We propose an alternative method for estimating farm prevalence in the context of Brucella seroprevalence estimation in an endemic region of Kazakhstan. We collected 210 milk samples from Otar district, with a population of about 1000 cattle and 16 000 small ruminants, and tested them using an indirect ELISA. Individual-level prevalence and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Taylor series linearization. A model was developed to estimate the smallholding prevalence, taking into account variable sampling proportions and uncertainty in the test accuracy. We estimate that 73% of households that we sampled had at least one Brucella-seropositive animal (95% credible interval 68-82). We estimate that 58% (95% confidence interval 40-76) of lactating small ruminants and 14% (95% confidence interval 1-28) of lactating cows were seropositive. Our results suggest that brucellosis is highly endemic in the area and conflict with those of the official brucellosis-testing programme, which found that in 2013 0% of cows and 1·7% of small ruminants were seropositive.
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.