ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Serological evaluation of brucellosis in nomadic small ruminants in Southeastern Türkiye.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBrucellosis is a globally widespread disease due to the presence of multiple bacterial species and a broad host range. In regions where livestock production is conducted under a ‘nomadic lifestyle’, detection and consequently control of the disease become challenging. The aim of this study was to obtain epidemiological data for surveillance of brucellosis in aborting nomadic sheep and goats using the Rose Bengal plate test (RBPT) and indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (i-ELISA). For this purpose, 343 serum samples collected from nomadic animals in the Southeastern Anatolia region of Türkiye were included in the study.
methodA total of 343 serum samples (n = 155 goats, n = 188 sheep) obtained from aborting nomadic small ruminants in the Southeastern Anatolia region of Türkiye were included. The samples were evaluated for brucellosis using classical and modified RBPT, as well as i-ELISA employing synthetic trisaccharide antigens.
resultsOf the serum samples, 20.99% tested positive by RBPT, while 24.78% tested positive by i-ELISA. According to the Kappa coefficient, the two test results were concordant; however, McNemar’s test indicated a statistically significant difference between the tests. To increase diagnostic specificity, 67 samples (19.53%) that tested positive by both RBPT and i-ELISA were considered ‘confirmed positive’.
conclusionIn regions where small ruminant production is a major livelihood due to socioeconomic and geographical conditions, brucellosis-associated abortion cases constitute a serious problem. While RBPT plays an important role as a practical diagnostic tool in resource-limited settings, the widespread use of diagnostic methods employing highly sensitive and specific antigens is considered essential for obtaining more reliable and accurate results in endemic areas.
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.