ArticleBulletin of experimental biology and medicine2021
Comparison of Different Laboratory Methods for Clinical Detection of Brucella Infection.
Article in Bulletin of experimental biology and medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond Serology: A Meta-Analysis of Advancements in Molecular Detection of Brucella spp. in Seronegative Animals and Biological Samples.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Pooled it
- Disease Biomarker Detection Using Fluorescence Polarization Assays: Principles and Clinical Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Seroprevalence of Brucellosis in Cattle, Sheep, and Goats in the Southeastern Region of Bangladesh.Veterinary medicine international · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of brucellosis: Combining tests to improve performance.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Observational
- Periprosthetic hip infections caused byThe Journal of international medical research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapidity, accuracy, and detection abilities of different laboratory methods (tube agglutination test (SAT), indirect ELISA, fluorescence polarization test (FPA), and blood culture methods) to detect Brucella in the laboratory. The study included 95 patients with documented and 42 patients with suspected brucellosis and 56 healthy control subjects. For the tests, the positive rates of Brucella infection detection in the confirmed group were significantly higher than in group with suspected infection (p<0.01) and in healthy controls (p<0.01). There was no significant difference between indirect ELISA and FPA in detecting antibodies to Brucella in acute (χ
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.