Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 537

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Manifestations of Human Brucellosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Dean, Anna S., Crump, Lisa, Greter, Helena, Hattendorf, Jan, Schelling, Esther, Zinsstag, Jakob·2012·PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this systematic review, commissioned by WHO, were to assess the frequency and severity of clinical manifestations of human brucellosis, in view of specifying a disability weight for a DALY calculation. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty three databases were searched, with 2,385 articles published between January 1990-June 2010 identified as relating to human brucellosis. Fifty-seven studies were of sufficient quality for data extraction. Pooled proportions of cases with specific clinical manifestations were stratified by age category and sex and analysed using generalized linear mixed models. Data relating to duration of illness and risk factors were also extracted. Severe complications of brucellosis infection were not rare, with 1 case of endocarditis and 4 neurological cases per 100 patients. One in 10 men suffered from epididymo-orchitis. Debilitating conditions such as arthralgia, myalgia and back pain affected around half of the patients (65%, 47% and 45%, respectively). Given that 78% patients had fever, brucellosis poses a diagnostic challenge in malaria-endemic areas. Significant delays in appropriate diagnosis and treatment were the result of health service inadequacies and socioeconomic factors. Based on disability weights from the 2004 Global Burden of Disease Study, a disability weight of 0.150 is proposed as the first informed estimate for chronic, localised brucellosis and 0.190 for acute brucellosis. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review adds to the understanding of the global burden of brucellosis, one of the most common zoonoses worldwide. The severe, debilitating, and chronic impact of brucellosis is highlighted. Well designed epidemiological studies from regions lacking in data would allow a more complete understanding of the clinical manifestations of disease and exposure risks, and provide further evidence for policy-makers. As this is the first informed estimate of a disability weight for brucellosis, there is a need for further debate amongst brucellosis experts and a consensus to be reached.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001929

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 537

Metadata

Authors
Dean, A. S., Crump, L., Greter, H., Hattendorf, J., Schelling, E., & Zinsstag, J.
Venue
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Published
2012-12-06
Volume
6
Issue
12
Pages
e1929
ISSN
  • 1935-2727 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-2735
OpenAlex
W2061075150
Cited by
537
References
14
FWCI
6.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Manifestations of Human Brucellosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001929
The paper
Dean, A. S., Crump, L., Greter, H., Hattendorf, J., Schelling, E., & Zinsstag, J. (2012). Clinical Manifestations of Human Brucellosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001929

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.