Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16204506›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2005

Concentrations of pathogens and indicators in animal feces in the Sydney watershed.

Peter Cox, Merran Griffith, Mark Angles, Daniel Deere, Christobel Ferguson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2023
    Review
  7. Gastrointestinal parasites of six large mammals in the Wasgomuwa National Park, Sri Lanka.International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2022
    Article
  8. Molecular Detection ofVeterinary sciences · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pathogens transmitted in animal feces in low- and middle-income countries.International journal of hygiene and environmental health · 2018
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter CoxEcowise Environmental, P.O. Box 1834, Fyshwick, ACT 2609, Australia.
Merran Griffith
Mark Angles
Daniel Deere
Christobel Ferguson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A fecal analysis survey was undertaken to quantify animal inputs of pathogenic and indicator microorganisms in the temperate watersheds of Sydney, Australia. The feces from a range of domestic animals and wildlife were analyzed for the indicator bacteria fecal coliforms and Clostridium perfringens spores, the pathogenic protozoa Cryptosporidium and Giardia, and the enteric viruses adenovirus, enterovirus, and reovirus. Pathogen and fecal indicator concentrations were generally higher in domestic animal feces than in wildlife feces. Future studies to quantify potential pathogen risks in drinking-water watersheds should thus focus on quantifying pathogen loads from domestic animals and livestock rather than wildlife.

Indexed as

Water SupplyAnimalsAnimals, DomesticAnimals, WildAustraliaCatsCattleClostridium perfringensCryptosporidiumDogsEnterobacteriaceaeFecesFresh WaterGiardiaSpores, BacterialViruses

Identifiers

PMID16204506
PMCPMC1265995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.