ArticleScientific reports2025
Risk perception, seroprevalence, and real-time PCR detection of Brucella among pyretic patients and domestic animals in Kwara State, Nigeria.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of Brucellosis in Small Ruminants in Africa from 2000 to 2025: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Animal Disease Burden in Nigeria, 2006-2023.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 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
Abstract
Brucellosis is a neglected, reportable, and under-reported zoonosis that poses a significant public health challenge in endemic countries like Nigeria. In this study, the risk perception was assessed and 103 pyretic patients from three local government areas of Kwara State, Nigeria were screened by using Rose Bengal plate test (RBPT) and confirmed the analytical sensitivity through real-time PCR (qPCR). We further screened 150 cattle and 52 goats from within a 1-km radius of pyretic patients to determine disease burden in domestic animal reservoirs. Our findings revealed that most of the farmers have heard of brucellosis (89.3%, n = 92/103) while 38.8% (n = 40/103) reported they could identify the symptoms of brucellosis in their herds. The most important risk factors were the consumption of raw milk (92.2%, n = 95/103) and animal abortion within the last year (19.4%, n = 20/103). Also, most study participants (94.2%, n = 97/103) did not believe that they could be infected with the disease. The seroprevalence of brucellosis in humans was 5.8% (n = 6/103) and there was 100% concordance between the results of the RBPT and qPCR in humans. The seroprevalence was 18% and 25% in cattle and goats respectively. The qPCR revealed a lower prevalence rate of 11.3% and 15.4% in cattle and goats respectively. There was high discordance in sensitivity between the RBPT and qPCR in animal samples screened, although both tests had an analytical specificity of 100%. There was no association between awareness and positivity for brucellosis among the study participants and none of the sociodemographic variables significantly influenced the brucellosis positivity rate of humans. Public health physicians and community health workers should consider brucellosis as a differential diagnosis when clerking pyretic patients. In addition, we advocate for mass animal vaccinations and public education with an emphasis on identified risks.
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.