What do we really know about brucellosis diagnosis in livestock worldwide? A systematic review
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases·
- DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013185
- PMID
- 40526752
- PMCID
- PMC12173231
- OpenAlex
- W4411358550
- Study type
- Systematic review
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
Non-adherence to diagnostic guidelines may result in inaccurate diagnosis, delayed disease control, and elevated zoonotic risk for people exposed to infected animals. The findings raise concerns about the reliability of brucellosis data reported by countries.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The review examined which diagnostic methods are used globally for brucellosis in livestock and how well these methods align with WOAH guidelines.
Study design
Systematic review of 349 cross-sectional studies retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science without date restrictions. Studies focused on livestock (cattle, buffaloes, sheep, goats, and swine), while reviews, case reports, and case-control designs were excluded.
Population and setting
Studies covered livestock species across 349 research reports, with cattle most frequently studied (232 studies), followed by goats, sheep, buffaloes, and swine. Geographically, nearly half originated from Africa, followed by Asia, the Americas, and Europe.
Main findings
Rose Bengal test and indirect ELISA were the most commonly used immunological assays. One in five studies relied on a single immunological test to determine animal infection status. Culture and PCR were used in fewer than one-third of studies. Only 16% of included studies adhered to WOAH recommendations for sample selection, assay choice, protocol, and result interpretation. Among countries reporting specific Brucella species to WOAH, guideline-compliant studies confirming the pathogen were rare.
Public-health relevance
Non-adherence to diagnostic guidelines may result in inaccurate diagnosis, delayed disease control, and elevated zoonotic risk for people exposed to infected animals. The findings raise concerns about the reliability of brucellosis data reported by countries.
Important limitations
The review excluded case reports and case-control studies, which may have provided additional diagnostic context. This summary relies on the supplied single-article abstract and metadata; the full paper is required for decision-grade interpretation of study selection criteria, quality assessment, and detailed methodology.
GIDS interpretation
The systematic review provides a global snapshot of brucellosis diagnostic practices in livestock and highlights substantial divergence from international standards. It does not report new surveillance data but synthesizes published cross-sectional literature to assess diagnostic quality and guideline adherence.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 9 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.