ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Molecular and serological survey of Brucella spp. among rodents in western Iran.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and purposeBrucellosis is a prevalent bacterial zoonosis globally, affecting a broad range of hosts. The role of rodents in the survival and transmission of Brucella species to humans remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of Brucella infection among wild rodents in western Iran, specifically in KabudarAhang County within Hamadan Province. MATERIALS AND
methodsSampling was conducted across various regions of KabudarAhang County in western Iran between April 2014 and September 2017. Serological testing was performed using the standard tube agglutination method while molecular investigation was carried out through real-time PCR analysis. Subsequently, molecularly positive samples underwent species identification via conventional PCR.
resultsSerological testing revealed 7 positive samples (1.76%), including four Meriones persicus, one Mus musculus, one Meriones libycus, and one Spermophilus fulvus. In the molecular survey, three samples (0.68%) tested positive for Brucella; these included one M. musculus and two M. persicus. The molecular species identification test detected B. abortus in M. musculus among those positive for Brucella.
conclusionThese findings suggest that wild rodents may play an overlooked role in the maintenance of pathogenic Brucella species in natural environments. Furthermore, in situations where standard diagnostic guidelines for brucellosis in wildlife are not well established, employing multiple testing approaches is crucial for accurate detection.
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.