ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of the Characteristics of Brucella Patients Diagnosed With Blood Culture Positivity and/or Serology.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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.
- Research hotspots and development trends ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Blood culture positivity and its clinical determinants among hospitalized male patients with newly diagnosed, laboratory-confirmed brucellosis: a hospital-based retrospective study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of bacteraemic & non-bacteraemic brucellosis: A retrospective analysis of 2 years.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Establishment of a 23S rRNA assay for Brucella and its application in evaluating bacterial growth status.Veterinary research communications · 2025Article
- Determining Diagnostic Sensitivity: A Comparison of Rose Bengal Test, Coombs Gel Test, ELISA and Bacterial Culture in Brucellosis Diagnosis-Analyzing Clinical Effectiveness in Light of Inflammatory Markers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to investigate and compare the clinical, laboratory, and treatment response characteristics of patients diagnosed with positive culture or serology. In this way, we wanted to assess the validity of serological diagnosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was designed as a retrospective cross-sectional study between January 2010 and 2020. Patients with clinical and laboratory findings of acute/subacute brucellosis, patients with positive serological tests, and patients with growth of
resultsWe identified 294 patients diagnosed with brucellosis. Blood cultures were obtained from all patients, and
conclusionNo significant difference was found in terms of treatment response and prognosis between patients with and without blood culture growth who were clinically compatible with acute/subacute brucellosis as diagnosed by serological methods. Therefore, serological tests are reliable methods for the diagnosis of brucellosis in cases where blood culture is inconclusive.
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.