Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38452046›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2024

Diagnosis of human brucellosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mariana Lourenço Freire, Tália Santana Machado de Assis, Sarah Nascimento Silva, Gláucia Cota

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
24.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Laboratory diagnosis of brucellosis: evolving synergy between serological testing and next-generation sequencing.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. IgM and IgG Epitope Mapping of the Porin Outer Membrane Protein-2a fromInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mariana Lourenço FreireGrupo de Pesquisa Clínica e Políticas Públicas em Doenças Infecciosas e Parasitárias, Instituto René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0003-3380-2651
Tália Santana Machado de AssisGrupo de Pesquisa Clínica e Políticas Públicas em Doenças Infecciosas e Parasitárias, Instituto René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Sarah Nascimento SilvaGrupo de Pesquisa Clínica e Políticas Públicas em Doenças Infecciosas e Parasitárias, Instituto René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Gláucia CotaGrupo de Pesquisa Clínica e Políticas Públicas em Doenças Infecciosas e Parasitárias, Instituto René Rachou, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Belo Horizonte, Brasil.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz · BRFederal Center for Technological Education of Minas Gerais · BR

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistry of Health - Brazil
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrucellosis, a widely spread zoonotic disease, poses significant diagnostic challenges due to its non-specific symptoms and underreporting. Timely and accurate diagnosis is crucial for effective patient management and public health control. However, a comprehensive comparative review of available diagnostic tests is lacking. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsThis systematic review addressed the following question: 'What is the accuracy of the available tests to confirm human brucellosis?' Two independent reviewers examined articles published up to January 2023. The review included original studies reporting symptomatic patients with brucellosis suspicion, through any index test, with sensitivity and/or specificity as outcomes. As exclusion criteria were considered: sample size smaller than 10 patients, studies focusing on complicated brucellosis, and those lacking essential information about index or comparator tests. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed, with consideration for the index test, and 'culture' and 'culture and standard tube agglutination test (SAT)' were used as reference standards. Bias assessment and certainty of evidence were carried out using the QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools, respectively. A total of 38 studies reporting diagnostic test performance for human brucellosis were included. However, the evidence available is limited, and significant variability was observed among studies. Regarding the reference test, culture and/or SAT are deemed more appropriate than culture alone. Rose Bengal, IgG/IgM ELISA, and PCR exhibited equally high performances, indicating superior overall diagnostic accuracy, with very low certainty of the evidence. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review underscores the potential of the Rose Bengal test, IgG/IgM ELISA, and PCR as promising diagnostic tools for brucellosis. However, the successful implementation and recommendations for their use should consider the local context and available resources. The findings highlight the pressing need for standardization, improved reporting, and ongoing advancements in test development to enhance the accuracy and accessibility of brucellosis diagnosis.

Indexed as

BrucellosisSensitivity and SpecificityAgglutination TestsBrucellaDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumans

Identifiers

PMID38452046
PMCPMC10950246
OpenAlexW4392544689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.