SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Seroprevalence of brucellosis in humans and livestock in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. 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.
- Climatic Correlates of Brucellosis Transmission in a Semi-Arid Region of Xinjiang, China, 2015-2025: A Maximum Entropy Modeling Study Within a One Health Framework.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Bovine Brucellosis in Dairy Herds in Mali and Niger, 2024: Apparent Seroprevalence and Epidemiological Factors.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Brucellosis in the One Health Context: Gaps in Diagnosis, Control, and Global Epidemiology.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBrucellosis is a neglected tropical zoonotic disease of public health and economic concern. The disease is maintained within the populations by infected animals, and humans get infected via the consumption of livestock products and contact with post-parturient materials from an infected animal. Understanding the extent and distribution of the disease in both humans and animals is necessary for effective prevention and control in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the seroprevalence of brucellosis in humans and domestic livestock in SSA.
methodsThe review protocol was registered with the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) under registration number: INPLASY2023120123. A comprehensive search was done in six databases: PubMed, OpenAlex, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cross-ref, utilizing Medical Subject Headings (MESH). A number of keywords relevant to the subject of study were used to search through the selected online databases for articles published between 01 January 2012 and December 2024. Two hundred forty two full-text articles that fulfilled the eligibility criteria, distributed across 25 countries in SSA, were included in the final analysis. Cross-sectional studies that reported seroprevalence estimates on brucellosis infection for humans and domestic livestock species were included, whereas studies that reported seroprevalence estimates involving wildlife species and outside sub-Saharan Africa were excluded. The random effects meta-analysis model was used to pool the extracted seroprevalence data using R version v4.4.2. Subgroup analysis was performed for species, SSA region, country, diagnostic test, risk of bias, and whether the study was probabilistic or not. Heterogeneity between the studies was represented using I
resultsThe overall pooled seroprevalence of brucellosis was found to be approximately 5.7% (95% CI 5.01-6.47, tau
conclusionWe report high seroprevalence of brucellosis in SSA in both humans and animals based on the current results of the pooled seroprevalence from the studies. The burden is higher in humans compared to domestic livestock; however, this may be underestimated due to fewer studies and challenges with limited diagnostic capacity in most healthcare settings in SSA. The majority of the studies reported in this review utilized mainly RBT and ELISA compared to other sero-diagnostic tests available. Overall, we recommend strengthening biosecurity measures to reduce the burden of brucellosis in humans in all SSA countries as well as improving public awareness of the zoonotic nature of brucellosis to effectively prevent and control brucellosis in both livestock and humans. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: INPLASY2023120123.
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.