ArticleItalian journal of food safety2022
Prevalence of
Article in Italian journal of food safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of Bovine Brucellosis Antibodies in Serum and Milk Using Quantum Dot Microspheres Immunochromatographic Assay.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests for Brucellosis in Humans and Animals: A Meta-Analytical Approach.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Exploring bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh: Current scenario and future outlook.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2024Review
- Brucellosis: Unveiling the complexities of a pervasive zoonotic disease and its global impacts.Open veterinary journal · 2024Review
- Serological, phenotypic and molecular characterization of brucellosis in small ruminants in northern Algeria.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Detection ofIranian journal of veterinary research · 2024Article
- Brucellosis and One Health: Inherited and Future Challenges.Microorganisms · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brucella infection in animals is considered a great problem in most countries of the world. Our study designed to determine the prevalence of brucella in field animal's milk in Dhamar governorate, Yemen. Total of 808 raw milk samples from non-aborted field animals, 120 milk samples from aborted animals, and 30 pasteurized milk samples were teste by Milk-Ring Test (MRT), milk-ELISA test, isolation and identification of brucella species, and antibiotic susceptibility. The prevalence of brucella in milk samples from field animals was 0.8%, 2.6%, and 2% in cows, sheep, and goat milk samples respectively with MRT, and 0.8%, 1.3% and 1.6% in cows, sheep and goat milk samples respectively with the milk- ELISA test. The prevalence rate in milk samples from aborted animals was 33%, 64% and 41.2% with the MRT and 39%, 49%, and 41.2% in cows, sheep and goats respectively with the milk-ELISA test. All pasteurized milk samples were negative for the milk-ELISA test. The result of isolation showed 0.1% of Brucella in milk samples from field animals while 9.2% from aborted animals. All isolates of Brucella species were sensitivities to rifampicin, doxycycline, kanamycin, gentamicin, streptomycin, tetracycline, and ciprofloxacin, while resistant to ampicillin, erythromycin, and novobiocin. In conclusion, the high prevalence of milk brucella especially in aborted animals needs focusing and build controlling strategies plans to decrease the losses to the economy and avoid transferred to humans with unpasteurized milk consumption.
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.