ReviewVeterinary world2024
Indirect hemagglutination assay for diagnosing brucellosis: Past, present, and future.
Review in Veterinary world, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- IgM and IgG Epitope Mapping of the Porin Outer Membrane Protein-2a fromInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a recombinant Omp19+31-based indirect hemagglutination assay for serological diagnosis of bovine and ovine brucellosis.Veterinary world · 2026Article
- Development of a dual fluorescent microsphere-based lateral flow immunoassays for simultaneous detection ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of novel Brucella diagnostic antigen protein ST.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- The efficacy of egg albumin nanoparticles adjuvanted Clostridium perfringens type D toxoid vaccine in rabbits.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease that causes enormous losses in livestock production worldwide and has a significant public health impact. None of the brucellosis-free countries is currently able to guarantee their ability to prevent the introduction of the pathogen due to the increase in tourism and the expansion of migration. The timely identification of infected animals is an effective means of preventing brucellosis and minimizing the epidemiological risk. The tube agglutination test, Rose Bengal plate test, complement fixation test, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, which are routinely used to identify seropositive productive animals, have limitations and results that do not always correlate. The indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA) stands out among non-traditional methods because it is affordable, has a simple protocol, and is more reliable than classical serological tests, especially in cases of questionable and/or false-negative results. The diagnostic value of the IHA has long been studied by laboratories in several countries, but mostly by post-soviet research teams; therefore, the results continue to be published in Russian-language journals, ensuring that the local scientific community can access the results. In addition, the efficacy of this test for the diagnosis of brucellosis and other infectious diseases has not yet been reviewed. The purpose of this review was to summarize the results of studies on the development and use of IHA for the diagnosis of brucellosis and to determine the prospects for further improvement.
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.