Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec 22:9:976215.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.976215. eCollection 2022.

Prevalence, diagnosis, and manifestations of brucellosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Saeed Khoshnood  1   2 , Reza Pakzad  2   3 , Maryam Koupaei  4 , Maryam Shirani  5 , Almas Araghi  6 , Golnaz Mokhtari Irani  7 , Melika Moradi  8 , Iraj Pakzad  1   9 , Nourkhoda Sadeghifard  1 , Mohsen Heidary  10   11
Affiliations

Prevalence, diagnosis, and manifestations of brucellosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Saeed Khoshnood et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

Objectives: Brucellosis is one of the most prevalent zoonotic diseases common between humans and animals. Despite eradication efforts, the burden of the disease is well-known in endemic countries and in countries where brucellosis has not been an important health issue until recently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence, diagnosis, and manifestations of brucellosis.

Methods: In this study, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Google scholar databases were systematically searched to find studies published from 2011 to 2021. The search was conducted using text words and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Terms on the prevalence of brucellosis. Stata software 14.0 was used for all analyses.

Results: Based on the results, the pooled prevalence of brucellosis was 15.27% (95% CI: 9.68-21.86; heterogeneity I 2 index: 97.43; p < 0.001) for man and 15.33% (95% CI: 7.19-25.75; heterogeneity I 2 index: 98.19; p < 0.001) for woman. Age (coefficient: 0.240; p = 0.480), gender (coefficient: -0.017; p = 0.800), and publication year (coefficient: 0.114; p = 0.861) showed no significant effect on heterogeneity among studies. Egger's test indicated a significant publication bias for the prevalence of brucellosis (coefficient 3.894; p < 0.001). Moreover, the trim-and-fill method exhibited that the adjusted prevalence of brucellosis (18.30%, 95% CI: 14.10-22.52) was not significantly different from the original prevalence of brucellosis.

Conclusion: The pooled estimate for brucellosis prevalence was estimated as 15.53%. To better understand the epidemiology of brucellosis globally, more extensive studies are needed to be conducted throughout the world, especially in developing and low-income countries.

Keywords: Brucella; brucellosis; diagnosis; prevalence; review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of systematic review and meta-analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot for brucellosis prevalence in the world based on a random-effect model. Each study identifies the first author (year) and country. Each line segment's midpoint shows the prevalence estimate, the length of the line segment indicates a 95% confidence interval (CI) in each study, and the diamond mark illustrates the pooled estimate.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pooled prevalence with 95% confidence interval (CI) of brucellosis prevalence based on gender. The diamond mark shows the pooled prevalence, and the length of the diamond indicates the 95% CI.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Pooled prevalence with 95% confidence interval (CI) of brucellosis prevalence based on country.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Association of the prevalence of age (A) and sample size (B) with that of brucellosis by using meta-regression. The size of the circles denotes the precision of each study.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Funnel plot for assessing publication bias. The vertical and horizontal axes show the prevalence of brucellosis and the standard error of prevalence.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Mantur BG, Amarnath SK, Shinde RS. Review of clinical and laboratory features of human brucellosis. Indian J Med Microbiol. (2007) 25:188–202. 10.1016/S0255-0857(21)02105-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Al Jindan R. Scenario of pathogenesis and socioeconomic burden of human brucellosis in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci. (2021) 28:272–9. 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.09.059 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zheng R, Xie S, Lu X, Sun L, Zhou Y, Zhang Y, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiology and clinical manifestations of human brucellosis in China. BioMed Res Int. (2018) 2018:5712920. 10.1155/2018/5712920 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Franco MP, Mulder M, Gilman RH, Smits HL. Human brucellosis. Lancet Infect Dis. (2007) 7:775–86. 10.1016/S1473-3099(07)70286-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Godfroid J, Nielsen K, Saegerman C. Diagnosis of brucellosis in livestock and wildlife. Croatian Med J. (2010) 51:296–305. 10.3325/cmj.2010.51.296 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources