Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 4

Contribution of laboratory data to diagnosis and treatment in patients with brucellosis: a 5-year cross-sectional analysis

Hülya Duran(Tekirdağ Dr İsmail Fehmi Cumalıoğlu Şehir Hastanesi)0000-0002-4838-0730
Nihan Çeken(Tekirdağ Dr İsmail Fehmi Cumalıoğlu Şehir Hastanesi)0000-0003-1877-7320
Tuğba Kula Atik(BALIKESIR UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE)0000-0002-2433-1977
Esma Yeniiz(Balikesir City Hospital)0000-0001-7402-5647
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, we believe that in addition to the STA test used in the diagnosis of brucellosis, other laboratory parameters can also assist the clinician in diagnosis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: This study aimed to evaluate laboratory findings in patients with brucellosis in our region where livestock farming is widespread and to examine their contribution in diagnosis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: 254 patients who presented to our hospital’s infectious diseases outpatient clinic with various complaints between 2017 and 2021, tested positive standard tube agglutination (STA), were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, we believe that in addition to the STA test used in the diagnosis of brucellosis, other laboratory parameters can also assist the clinician in diagnosis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Brucellosis · laboratory parameters · diagnosis

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate laboratory findings in patients with brucellosis in our region where livestock farming is widespread and to examine their contribution in diagnosis. Methods: 254 patients who presented to our hospital’s infectious diseases outpatient clinic with various complaints between 2017 and 2021, tested positive standard tube agglutination (STA), were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups based on their STA titers: low titers (1/80 and 1/160) and high titers (≥1/320). These two groups were compared regarding demographic data, laboratory data, and symptoms at presentation. Results: According to STA titer, 93 patients (36.6%) had low titers, while 161 patients (63.4%) had high titers. The most common complaints were low back pain and with no significant difference between the two groups. The mean C-reactive protein (CRP) value was higher in the low titer group than in the high titer group, and a significant difference was found between the two groups. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) values were slightly higher in the low titer group than in the high titer group, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Our study found that laboratory parameters such as CRP, ESR, NLR, and PLR were higher in patients with low titers compared to those with high titers, but significant difference was found only in CRP. Therefore, we believe that in addition to the STA test used in the diagnosis of brucellosis, other laboratory parameters can also assist the clinician in diagnosis.

🔖

Cite This Article

Duran, H., Çeken, N., Atik, T. K., Yeniiz, E. (2026). Contribution of laboratory data to diagnosis and treatment in patients with brucellosis: a 5-year cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1900983

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Qureshi KA, Parvez A, Fahmy NA, et al. Brucellosis: epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment-a comprehensive review. Ann Med. 2023;55(2):2295398. doi:10.1080/07853890.2023.2295398
  2. Liu Z, Gao L, Wang M, Yuan M, Li Z. Long ignored but making a comeback: a worldwide epidemiological evolution of human brucellosis. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2024;13(1):2290839. doi:10.1080/22221751.2023.2290839
  3. Laine CG, Johnson VE, Scott HM, Arenas-Gamboa AM. Global estimate of human brucellosis incidence. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29(9):1789-1797. doi:10.3201/eid2909.230052
  4. Zheng R, Xie S, Lu X, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiology and clinical manifestations of human brucellosis in China. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:5712920. doi:10.1155/2018/5712920
  5. Yagupsky P, Morata P, Colmenero JD. Laboratory diagnosis of human brucellosis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019;33(1):00073-19. doi:10.1128/CMR.00073-19
  6. Nik Mazlan SA, Abdul Hadi Sabri FS, Mohamed Zahidi J, Seman Z, Ahmad N, Ramli SR. Human brucellosis: six years retrospective study on seropositivity in Malaysia. Malays J Pathol. 2022;44(2):269-276.
  7. Balin SO, Tartar AS, Akbulut A. The predictive role of haematological parameters in the diagnosis of osteoarticular brucellosis. Afri Health Sci. 2018;18(4):988-994. doi:10.4314/ahs.v18i4.19
  8. Bozdemir SE, Altintop YA, Uytun S. Diagnostic role of mean platelet volume and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in childhood brucellosis. Korean J Intern Med. 2017;32(6):1075-1081. doi:10.3904/kjim.2016.092
  9. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335(7624):806-808.
  10. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health, Microbiological diagnosis of brucellosis. In National Microbiology Standards Infectious Diseases Laboratory Diagnostic Guide, Volume 1, Ankara, 2014;1-22.
  11. Temiz H, Ozcan N, Arac E, Ozbek ED. Brucellosis seroprevalence in Dicle University Medical Faculty Hospital: Rose Bengal test and Brucella Coombs test results. Dicle Med J. 2022;49(4):660-666. doi:10.5798/dicletip.1220929
  12. Tekin R, Aktar F, Yılmaz K, Tekin S, Ayaz C. Comparison of inflammatory markers between adult and pediatric brucellosis patients. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2020;5(53):e20190356. doi:10.1590/0037-8682-0356-2019
  13. Koksal MO, Durmus MA, Beka H, Agacfidan A. Investigation of Brucella seroprevalence and risk factors in patients admitting to a university hospital. ANKEM. 2020;34(2):65-70. doi:10.5222/ankem.2020.065
  14. Celik DG, Sirekbasan S, Abdelkareem A, et al. The results of serum agglutination (wright) and Rose-Bengal tests in the diagnosis of brucellosis: 6 years retrospective seroepidemiological evaluation of Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty serology laboratory datas. Cerrahpasa Med J. 2018;42(1):80-85. doi:10.26650/cjm.2018.42.1.2
  15. Ozer-Balin S, Bozkurt T, Ozturk-Kaygusuz T, Akbulut A, Demirdag K. Evaluation of brucellosis cases and complications. Klimik J. 2024;37(4): 247-251. doi:10.36519/kd.2024.4966
  16. Sahin M, Cesur S, Enki S. Eighty-three cases of Brucella infection from an endemic region. Ortadogu Med J. 2019;11(2):101-106. doi:10.21601/ortadogutipdergisi.543853
  17. Alici A, Uner F, Gizem E. Brucellosis: evaluation of 144 cases from an endemic region. Klimik J. 2024;37(2):137-142. doi:10.36519/kd.2024.4925
  18. Sozen H, Caylak S, Deveer M, Cullu N. Brucellar spondylodiscitis in an endemic area: retrospective review of 18 patients. Konuralp Med J. 2015;7(3):134-140. doi:10.18521/ktd.25432
  19. Koyuncu H, Oflu AT, Gungor A, Bukulmez A. Platelet Mass Index, Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as practical markers in childhood brucellosis. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2025;43:e2024123. doi:10.1590/1984-0462/2025/43/2024123
  20. Boncuoglu E, Tuter Oz SK, Bagci Z. Inflammatory marker comparison in childhood brucellosis: predicting osteoarticular involvement. Turk J Pediatr. 2025;67(2):248-253. doi:10.24953/turkjpediatr.2025.5811
  21. Dalmanoglu E, Caglar Y, Aldemir GE. Diagnostic value of mean platelet volume and hematological inflammatory ratios in brucellosis: a case-control study. Life (Basel). 2026;16(2):352. doi:10.3390/life16020352
  22. Uysal S, Dana F, Isikgoz M, et al. Evaluation of hepatosplenomegaly and liver function tests in 102 brucellosis cases. Mediterr J Infect Microb Antimicrob. 2014;3:24-27. doi:10.5578/mjima.9034
  23. Olt S, Ergenc H, Acikgoz SB. Predictive contribution of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio in diagnosis of brucellosis. Biomed Res Int. 2015;1:210502. doi:10.1155/2015/210502
  24. Wang W, Wang Z, Jia K, Tang J, Wang L. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of childhood brucellosis in high-risk area of Western China. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2022;75(2):127-132. doi:10.7883/yoken.JJID.2021.388
  25. Cuzdan N, Duran A, Atik T. Serological interpretation of rheumatic manifestations in brucellosis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2022;32(4):503-509. doi:10.29271/jcpsp.2022.04.503
  26. Hacimustafaoglu M. Acute phase reactants (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CRP). J Pediatr Inf. 2017;11(1):53-55. doi:10.5578/ced.201701
  27. Celik M, Cicek Y, Atalay E, et al. Predictive significance of laboratory tests in bacteremic brucellosis. Iran J Public Health. 2024;53(4):799-808. doi:10.18502/ijph.v53i4.15556
  28. Jishna P, Dominic S. Acute phase reactants: relevance in dermatology. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2022;14(1):1-8. doi:10.4103/idoj.idoj_174_21