ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2023
Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock-wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth?
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2023. 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.
- One Health and planetary health research landscapes in the Arab world.Science in One Health · 2025Review
- Exploring bovine brucellosis in Bangladesh: Current scenario and future outlook.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2024Review
- Review
- Bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis at a livestock-wildlife interface in Zimbabwe: A nexus for amplification of a zoonosis or a myth?Veterinary medicine and science · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBovine brucellosis and tuberculosis are important zoonoses affecting both livestock and wildlife.
objectivesThe study aimed to investigate seroprevalence of brucellosis and to isolate Brucella spp. and Mycobacterium bovis in cattle from livestock-wildlife interface areas.
methodsThree sites were selected from high, medium and low interface. The high interface was adjacent to the park and separated by a broken fence, while the medium and low interface were 15-20 and 50 km from the perimeter fence, respectively. Cattle aged ≥2 years were randomly selected and bled for serology. Culture for brucellae and Mycobacterium species was attempted on lymph nodes collected at the slaughter floor. Sera were screened for Brucella antibodies using the Rose Bengal test and confirmed by the Complement fixation test. Data were analysed using a multivariable logistic regression model.
resultsOverall, seroprevalence was 11.7% (125/1068; 95% CI: 9.8-13.6%). High interface areas recorded significantly higher (p < 0.05) seroprevalence of 20.9% (85/406; 95% CI: 17.0-24.9%), compared to low 8.9% (31/350; 95% CI: 5.9-11.8%) and medium interface 2.9% (9/312; 95% CI: 1.0-4.8%). Brucella seropositivity was approximately three times higher (OR = 3.3, 95% CI: 2.1-5.3) for Malipati compared to Chiredzi. Similarly, the odds were twice (OR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.2-3.5) in cows with history of abortion compared to those without. Brucella and Mycobacterium species were not isolated from all samples.
conclusionsThe study highlighted the significance of high interface as a nexus for amplification of brucellosis in cattle. Thus, a brucellosis control programme that takes into consideration limiting livestock-wildlife interaction should be considered.
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.