ArticleVeterinary research communications2022
Cross-sectional study of Brucella spp. using real-time PCR from bovine whole blood in Colombia.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of Brucella spp. from milk by quantitative PCR as a monitoring method for brucellosis in cattle in Mongolia.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Molecular Detection ofInternational journal of microbiology · 2025Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of bovine brucellosis seroprevalence in Latin America and the Caribbean.New microbes and new infections · 2023Review
- The Importance of Complementary PCR Analysis in Addition to Serological Testing for the Detection of Transmission Sources ofVeterinary sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A cross-sectional study was conducted in Colombia to recover Brucella spp. DNA from bovine whole-blood samples through probe-based real-time PCR (qPCR). By an SNP-based assay, vaccine strains were differentiated from field strains. The associated factors were evaluated using logistical regression models. A total of 656 random cows from 40 herds were selected and analyzed using serology and PCR. The qPCR assay detected 9.5% (n = 62/656; 95% CI: 7.3, 12.0) of the animals with Brucella-DNA presence, while the serological test detected a 6.6% (n = 43/656; CI: 4.8, 8.7). 62.5% (n = 25/40; 95% CI: 45.8, 77.3) of positive cases were detected at the herd-level by the qPCR, while only 27.5% (n = 11/40; 95% CI: 14.6, 43.9) were detected by the serological test. All positive samples were identified as field Brucella strains employing the SNP-based assay. In the final regression model at the animal-level, five variables were associated with Brucella-DNA presence: the use of bulls for mating recorded history of reproductive problems, pregnant cows, parlor milking, and cows belonging to farms ≤200 m from the main road. At the herd-level, two variables were associated with Brucella-DNA presence: recorded history of reproductive problems and the use of bulls for mating. Given the fluctuant brucellosis prevalence in endemic areas, updated epidemiological studies are necessary to evaluate the disease dynamic and if established prevention and control measures have been effective or need to be adjusted. The increase in the prevalence of brucellosis in animal reservoirs creates an important risk of transmission in humans.
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.