Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30957947›Full record

ReviewVeterinary medicine and science2019

Bovine brucellosis in Pakistan; an analysis of engagement with risk factors in smallholder farmer settings.

Shumaila Arif, Peter C Thomson, Marta Hernandez-Jover, David M McGill, Hassan M Warriach, Khizar Hayat, Jane Heller

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary medicine and science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Animal and Human Brucellosis in Pakistan.Frontiers in public health · 2021
    Review
  11. Seroepidemiology of bovine brucellosis in Colombia's preeminent dairy region, and its potential public health impact.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Seroprevalence and Molecular Identification ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2020
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Shumaila ArifSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1103-333X
Peter C ThomsonGraham Centre for Agricultural Innovation, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.
Marta Hernandez-JoverSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.
David M McGillFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Hassan M WarriachAVCCR Dairy-Beef Project, University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.
Khizar HayatAVCCR Dairy-Beef Project, University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.
Jane HellerSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.
Charles Sturt University · AUUniversity of Veterinary and Animal Sciences · PKThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A cross-sectional study was conducted to estimate the seroprevalence of bovine brucellosis in smallholder farms in seven regions in Pakistan, identify herd and individual level risk factors for seropositivity and assess the level of engagement of farmers with risk factors. In total, 1063 cattle and buffalo belonging to 420 herds in seven districts were sampled. The Rose Bengal test (RBT), indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (I-ELISA) and competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (C-ELISA) were used for the serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis on all the serum samples. The associations between herd-and animal-level risk factors and seropositivity were investigated using logistic regression analyses. In addition, herd management practice scores, created to quantify the number of management practices undertaken that pose a risk for Brucella transmission, were calculated and compared between seropositive and negative herds within each district. Overall herd and animal prevalence were estimated to be 16.2% (95% CI, 13-20%) and 8.7% (95% CI, 7.2-10.6%), respectively, across all districts sampled. Herds with a history of last trimester abortion were found to be more likely to be positive than herds without such history (OR = 2.06, 95% CI, 1.09-3.89), providing validation of our findings and identifying that clinical disease is occurring in this region. It was also identified that herds with five to eight buffalo (OR = 3.80, 95% CI, 1.69-8.49), and those with more than eight buffalo (OR = 3.81, 95% CI, 1.51-9.58) were more likely to be positive for Brucella than those with less (one to two and three to four) buffaloes present in the herd. The presence of other domestic animals at the farm and purchasing animals in last year were found to have no association with seropositivity. The findings of this study support the need for the development of targeted intervention strategies specific to the disease status of each district.

Indexed as

AgricultureAnimalsBrucellosis, BovineCattleCross-Sectional StudiesPakistanPrevalenceRisk FactorsSeroepidemiologic Studiesbovine brucellosisPakistanrisk factorsseroprevalencesmallholder farmers

Identifiers

PMID30957947
PMCPMC6682800
OpenAlexW2939467059

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.