ArticleBMC infectious diseases2019
Associated factors in distinguishing patients with brucellosis from suspected cases.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tissue infarction secondary to brucellosis: a systematic review of case reports and case series.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Serodiagnosis of human brucellosis by an indirect ELISA test using recombinant outer membrane protein 19 kDa (rOMP19) as an antigen.BMC biotechnology · 2023Article
- Brucella-infected abdominal aortic aneurysm: management strategies for an uncommon aneurysm.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the risk factors for brucellosis in suspected cases of the disease.
methodsA self-designed questionnaire was developed to collect data from 3557 people whose initial visit site was the Songyuan Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from January 1st, 2009 to December 31st, 2012. After collecting blood samples, a plate agglutination test (PAT) and serum agglutination test (SAT) were used to distinguish the patients with brucellosis from the suspected cases.
resultsSex, occupation (farmers and herdsmen), contact with abortion products, and contact with feces were the main risk factors for brucellosis in the suspected cases (all P < 0.05). No difference existed between the confirmed cases and suspected cases in the demographic characteristics, contact with animals (except swine), contact with substances, or clinical symptoms (except fever). However, the confirmed cases showed significant differences from people without brucellosis in demographic characteristics, contact with animals (except cattle and swine), contact with substances, and clinical symptoms. Suspected cases exhibited significant differences from people without brucellosis in the demographic characteristics (except education), contact with animals (except swine), contact with substances (except dust), and clinical symptoms (except chills and acratia). Brucella was cultured from the blood samples of three of 30 suspected cases with fever. Using AMOS-PCR and agarose electrophoresis, the detailed species of Brucella strain was identified as Brucella melitensis.
conclusionsAbortion products and feces are the main risk factors for brucellosis in suspected cases of the disease. Pyrexia in suspected cases with a history of contact with abortion products or feces should raise suspicion for the disease.
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.