Diagnosis of Brucellosis

Boon, T.H.; Williams, Eirian

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(70)92522-5

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in other diseases, molecular tests are expected to have high sensitivity, however, they may not necessarily indicate an active infection but rather a low bacterial inoculum, DNA from dead bacteria, or a past infection. In the same way as for serology, the wide variation in reagents, targets, and methods, specially between commercial and home-made molecular tests, make the systematic collection of data, followed by a critical analysis, the first step in staging the available level of evidence [ 15 , 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of human brucellosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Freire,

Machado de Assis,

Silva

et al. 2024

PLoS Negl Trop Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Brucellosis, a widely spread zoonotic disease, poses significant diagnostic challenges due to its non-specific symptoms and underreporting. Timely and accurate diagnosis is crucial for effective patient management and public health control. However, a comprehensive comparative review of available diagnostic tests is lacking. Methodology/Principal findings This systematic review addressed the following question: ‘What is the accuracy of the available tests to confirm human brucellosis?’ Two independent reviewers examined articles published up to January 2023. The review included original studies reporting symptomatic patients with brucellosis suspicion, through any index test, with sensitivity and/or specificity as outcomes. As exclusion criteria were considered: sample size smaller than 10 patients, studies focusing on complicated brucellosis, and those lacking essential information about index or comparator tests. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed, with consideration for the index test, and ‘culture’ and ‘culture and standard tube agglutination test (SAT)’ were used as reference standards. Bias assessment and certainty of evidence were carried out using the QUADAS-2 and GRADE tools, respectively. A total of 38 studies reporting diagnostic test performance for human brucellosis were included. However, the evidence available is limited, and significant variability was observed among studies. Regarding the reference test, culture and/or SAT are deemed more appropriate than culture alone. Rose Bengal, IgG/IgM ELISA, and PCR exhibited equally high performances, indicating superior overall diagnostic accuracy, with very low certainty of the evidence. Conclusions/Significance This systematic review underscores the potential of the Rose Bengal test, IgG/IgM ELISA, and PCR as promising diagnostic tools for brucellosis. However, the successful implementation and recommendations for their use should consider the local context and available resources. The findings highlight the pressing need for standardization, improved reporting, and ongoing advancements in test development to enhance the accuracy and accessibility of brucellosis diagnosis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%