ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2025
Zoonotic Abortifacient Agents in Bovine Abortion: Diagnostic Assessment of 125 Cases (2015-2017).
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 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.
- Infectious causes of pregnancy loss in cattle: a review of loss intensity and major reproductive pathogens involved.Animal reproduction · 2026Review
- Pathogen-driven pregnancy loss in dairy cattle: An overview of diagnostic advances and innovations.Open veterinary journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe threat of zoonotic diseases is significant to global public health. Campylobacter spp., Coxiella burnetii (C. burnetii), Brucella spp., Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes), Chlamydia abortus (C. abortus), and Cache Valley virus (CVV) play a role in bovine abortion and are transmitted from animals to humans.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the presence of these zoonotic abortifacient agents in bovine foetuses (n = 125), each from different herds, in a three-year period in Türkiye.
methodsThe detection and differentiation of Brucella spp. was achieved using a PCR method, while a multiplex PCR assay was used to detect and differentiate Campylobacter spp. Real-time PCR assays were used to detect C. burnetii, C. abortus, and L. monocytogenes. Furthermore, samples were tested for CVV using one-step duplex real-time RT-PCR.
resultsAlthough L. monocytogenes and C. abortus and CVV were not detected, Brucella spp., Campylobacter spp., and C. burnetii were detected in 19 (15.2%), 4 (3.2%), and 2 (1.6%) of the bovine foetuses, respectively. Brucella and Campylobacter species were identified by molecular testing as B. melitensis (n = 4) and B. abortus (n = 15) and C. jejuni (n = 2) and C. foetus subsp. foetus (n = 2), respectively.
conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that Brucella spp., Campylobacter spp., and C. burnetii could pose a threat to both cattle and human health in the studied regions. Further studies are required to determine the exact role of these agents in cattle reproductive losses in Türkiye, as well as the economic impact of these agents on livestock.
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.