SynthesisTransboundary and emerging diseases2024
Efficacy of
Synthesis in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modern Strategies for Brucellosis Vaccination: From Traditional Approaches to Innovative Platforms.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Brucellosis vaccine development: immunological mechanisms, animal models, and future directions.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Epidemiological landscape and genetic prospects for marker-assisted selection in Kazakh sheep.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Brucellosis is a major worldwide public health problem with economic and zoonotic implications. Despite the importance of vaccines in preventing brucellosis, no previous systematic evaluation of vaccination in sheep has been conducted. Materials and Methods: Articles were searched in databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane, VIP, Wan Fang, and CNKI by screening the articles, and articles reporting Results: A total of 2,605 articles were retrieved, and 17 articles were obtained through screening for analysis. The effectiveness of vaccination was 65% (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.27-0.36; VE = 65%), with the M5 vaccine being significantly more effective at 84% (RR = 0.1587, 95% CI: 0.0256-0.9858; VE = 84%) than the other vaccines, and intramuscular injection could be the best route of immunization. Rev.1 was indicated for female sheep, especially for pregnant ewes (RR = 0.2016, 95% CI: 0.1139-0.3569; VE = 80%), and for reduced abortions (RR = 0.0978, 95% CI: 0.0459-0.2085). Conclusion: This meta-analysis was conducted to identify the relevant factors affecting vaccine efficacy. We recommend that sheep be inoculated intramuscularly with Rev.1, different inoculation protocols be adopted for sheep of different ages, and pregnant ewes be inoculated with Rev.1 to prevent abortion.
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.