Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41098548›Full record

ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025

Global epidemiology and diagnostic insights into canine brucellosis: A comprehensive meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Maryam Dadar, Yadolah Fakhri, Youcef Shahali, Manuela Tittarelli, Flavio Sacchini, Fabrizio De Massis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026
    Review
  3. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Seroprevalence and Antibody Magnitude ofVeterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maryam DadarBrucellosis Department, Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute (RVSRI); Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
Yadolah FakhriFood Health Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
Youcef ShahaliUniversity Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
Manuela TittarelliWOAH, FAO and National Reference Laboratory for Brucellosis, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell'Abruzzo e del Molise "G. Caporale", Campo Boario, 64100 Teramo, Italy.
Flavio SacchiniWOAH, FAO and National Reference Laboratory for Brucellosis, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell'Abruzzo e del Molise "G. Caporale", Campo Boario, 64100 Teramo, Italy.
Fabrizio De MassisWOAH, FAO and National Reference Laboratory for Brucellosis, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell'Abruzzo e del Molise "G. Caporale", Campo Boario, 64100 Teramo, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This meta-analysis on canine brucellosis aimed to examine the global epidemiology, risk factors, diagnostic techniques, and clinical symptoms associated with the disease. The study adhered to the Cochrane approach and PRISMA recommendations for precise data selection and analysis, drawing from research published between 1970 and 2025. Data was gathered from various databases, including Science Direct, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Strict criteria were implemented to evaluate relevant papers for inclusion, ensuring that the research focused specifically on

Indexed as

Brucella canisCanine brucellosisDiagnostic methodsDogGlobal prevalenceMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID41098548
PMCPMC12519315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.