ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2018
Seroreactivity and Risk Factors Associated with Human Brucellosis among Cattle Slaughterhouse Workers in South Korea.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human Brucellosis in the Rural and Urban Population of Pakistan: Seroprevalence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Manifestations.Current microbiology · 2025Article
- Brucellosis: Unveiling the complexities of a pervasive zoonotic disease and its global impacts.Open veterinary journal · 2024Review
- Occupational exposure to livestock and risk of tuberculosis and brucellosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Article
- Femoral Head Necrosis Due toInfection and drug resistance · 2022Article
- Factors Associated with Human Brucellosis among patients Attending in Ayu Primary Hospital, North Showa, Ethiopia: ACase Control Study.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2021Article
- Risk Factors for Acute Brucellosis in Patients on the Day of Admission at Selected Hospitals of Abbottabad, Pakistan.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
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
The prevalence rate of human brucellosis in high-risk populations, as well as their risk factors, have not been well understood in South Korea. In this cross-sectional study, we investigated the seroreactivity and risk factors associated with human brucellosis among South Korean cattle slaughterhouse workers. We enrolled 922 subjects working in 71 slaughterhouses across the country in 2012. A structured questionnaire was used to obtain data from the subjects, following which blood samples were collected and tested using the microagglutination test; serum titers ≥ 1:20 were considered reactive. Independent risk factors were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis with backward elimination. Overall, 62 of 922 participants (6.7%) exhibited seroreactivity for brucellosis, and 0.4% had a seroprevalence at a dilution of 1:160. Multivariate analysis revealed that the risk factors for human brucellosis seroreactivity included large-scale slaughtering (≥100 cattle per day; odds ratio (OR), 5.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.95⁻9.91) and medium-scale slaughtering (50⁻99 cattle per day; OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.16⁻5.51). Moreover, the risk of brucellosis infection was significantly lower among slaughterhouse workers who always wear protective glasses (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11⁻0.69) than in those who sometimes or rarely wore such glasses. Regular and consistent use of personal protective equipment, especially protective glasses, should be encouraged among cattle slaughterhouse workers to reduce brucellosis infection.
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.