Human‐to‐human transmission of Brucella – a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Objective: The most common form of transmitting human brucellosis is through contaminated food or direct contact with infected animals. Human‐to‐human transmission ( HHT ) has been described as isolated case reports. The aim of this systematic review was to describe all cases of HHT of human brucellosis reported in the medical literature. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Scielo databases using specific search terms published until March 2016. Two investigators independently determined study eligibility. All clinical data were evaluated to construct a table comprising the most important clinical aspects, age, gender, confirmed infection and detection method, transmission method and HHT confirmation and potential source of infection for human transmission. No statistical method was employed in this study. Results: The initial search resulted in 615 publications, but only 35 were included. 45 brucellosis HHT cases were identified. 61% of patients who acquired brucellosis from another human were <1 year old (newborn and breastfeeding). Other cases include sexual transmission, blood transfusion, bone marrow transplantation and aerosol from an infected patient. Most patients (40/45) presented symptoms upon diagnosis. Diagnostic tests included culture, molecular methods and serum testing. Conclusion: Human brucellosis is a disease liable to transmission between humans by placental barrier, lactation, sexual and tissues such as blood and bone marrow. The indication for screening in tissue banks, transplants, blood and pregnancy is not yet established.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
No suitable tool for assessing risk of bias in noncomparative studies could be found in the literature.
“No suitable tool for assessing noncomparative studies could be found in the literature and similar systematic reviews of human-to-human or animal-to-human transmission of infectious agents that we could find did not undertake a RoB assessment [21–24].”
From Evidence for Human-to-Human Transmission of Hantavirus: A Systematic Review (2022) · cites this paper as [21]
The ‘Study inclusion, data extraction and study quality assessment’ section describes how the review selected studies and extracted case data, but does not say that no suitable risk-of-bias tool for noncomparative studies existed or could be found. A search for risk-of-bias tools and quality-assessment methods found no passage addressing their availability. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Skalsky K, Yahav D, Bishara J, Pitlik S, Leibovici L, Paul M. Treatment of human brucellosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2008: 336: 701-704.
- Dean AS, Crump L, Greter H, Hattendorf J, Schelling E, Zinsstag J. Clinical manifestations of human brucellosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2012: 6: e1929.
- Aydin B, Beken S, Akansel R et al. Prematurity due to maternal brucella infection and review of the literature. Turk J Pediatr 2013: 55: 433-437.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evidence for Human-to-Human Transmission of Hantavirus: A Systematic Review
Toledo, J., Haby, M. M., Reveiz, L., Sosa Leon, L., Angerami, R., & Aldighieri, S. (2022) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiab461 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tuon, F. F., Gondolfo, R. B., & Cerchiari, N.
- Affiliations
- Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (BR)
- Universidade Federal do Paraná (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Tuon, Felipe F.
- Venue
- Tropical Medicine & International Health
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-03-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 539-546
- ISSN
- 1360-2276 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-3156
- OpenAlex
- W2588688215
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13
- FWCI
- 3.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Tropical Medicine & International Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Brucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Burkholderia infections and melioidosis
- Keywords
- human brucellosis, human-to-human transmission, Brucella, vertical transmission, placental transmission, breastfeeding, sexual transmission, blood transfusion, bone marrow transplantation, airborne transmission, neonates
- MeSH terms
- Blood Transfusion, Breast Feeding, Brucella, Brucellosis, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Bone Marrow Transplantation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review