Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42358237›Full record

ReviewVeterinary and animal science2026

A critical review of diagnostic methods for camel brucellosis.

Mammar Khames, Amaia Zúñiga-Ripa, Raquel Conde-Álvarez, Pilar M Muñoz, José María Blasco, Ignacio Moriyón

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary and animal science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Mammar KhamesDepartment of Biology, University of Medea, Medea 26000, Algeria.
Amaia Zúñiga-RipaBrucellosis Research Unit, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, University of Navarra, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IdiSNA), Edificio de Investigación, c/Irunlarrea 1, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.
Raquel Conde-ÁlvarezBrucellosis Research Unit, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, University of Navarra, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IdiSNA), Edificio de Investigación, c/Irunlarrea 1, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.
Pilar M MuñozDepartment of Animal Science, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), 50059 Zaragoza, Spain.
José María BlascoDepartment of Animal Science, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), 50059 Zaragoza, Spain.
Ignacio MoriyónBrucellosis Research Unit, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, University of Navarra, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IdiSNA), Edificio de Investigación, c/Irunlarrea 1, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease that severely affects animal productivity and human health worldwide. Although camels are susceptible, the diagnosis of brucellosis in these animals has received limited scientifically valid attention. Most bacteriological studies in naturally infected camels present major shortcomings, including insufficient sample type, size and processing, low inoculum volumes, suboptimal culture media, inadequate growth conditions, and imperfect strain typing. Regarding serological diagnosis, the unique features of camelid antibodies and their implications for WOAH-recommended tests are insufficiently addressed, leading to questionable assumptions about immunoglobulin detection. Comparative analysis of serological data across studies reveals a marked lack of standardization. Moreover, no serological test has been properly validated for camels, and cut-off values for quantitative assays, including iELISAs and cELISAs, are commonly extrapolated from cattle recommendations by manufacturers. These limitations, together with the inappropriate use of tests incorrectly regarded as confirmatory, undermine the reliability of published seroprevalence and risk factor studies subsequent reviews and meta-analyses, hindering One Health interventions. DNA-based diagnostics that have been directly applied to animal samples thus far are similarly unreliable. There are no systematic studies addressing sampling strategies, sample processing, DNA extraction, amplification protocols, or validation for PCR, RT-PCR and qPCR assays. Available evidence indicates low sensitivity compared with well-performed bacterial culture, and studies lack appropriate specificity controls. Although the difficulties imposed by the environment where most camel reside cannot be ignored, there is an urgent need for rigorously designed diagnostic studies. This review proposes improvements based on existing camel research and established experience in domestic ruminants.

Indexed as

BrucellosisCamelsCultureDiagnosisPCRRT-PCRSerology

Identifiers

PMID42358237
PMCPMC13292757

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.