Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22157306›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2012

Fecal indicators in sand, sand contact, and risk of enteric illness among beachgoers.

Christopher D Heaney, Elizabeth Sams, Alfred P Dufour, Kristen P Brenner, Richard A Haugland, Eunice Chern, Steve Wing, Stephen Marshall, David C Love, Marc Serre and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Review of the Human Health Risks from Microbial Hazards in Recreational Beach Sand.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Strategies for Monitoring Microbial Life in Beach Sand for Protection of Public Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Microbial Source Tracking as a Method of Determination of Beach Sand Contamination.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Climate Change Impacts on Microbiota in Beach Sand and Water: Looking Ahead.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Children Exposure-Related Behavior Patterns and Risk Perception Associated with Recreational Beach Use.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

12 authors.

Christopher D HeaneyDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA. cheaney@jhsph.eduD
Elizabeth Sams
Alfred P Dufour
Kristen P Brenner
Richard A Haugland
Eunice Chern
Steve Wing
Stephen Marshall
David C Love
Marc Serre
Rachel Noble
Timothy J Wade

Funding

Biostatstics for Research in Environmental HealthT32ES007018 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Stephanie Engel, Rebecca Fry · 1985 to 2026
$31.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBeach sand can harbor fecal indicator organisms and pathogens, but enteric illness risk associated with sand contact remains unclear.

methodsIn 2007, visitors at 2 recreational marine beaches were asked on the day of their visit about sand contact. Ten to 12 days later, participants answered questions about health symptoms since the visit. F+ coliphage, Enterococcus, Bacteroidales, fecal Bacteroides, and Clostridium spp. in wet sand were measured using culture and molecular methods.

resultsWe analyzed 144 wet sand samples and completed 4999 interviews. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were computed, comparing those in the highest tertile of fecal indicator exposure with those who reported no sand contact. Among those digging in sand compared with those not digging in sand, a molecular measure of Enterococcus spp. (calibrator cell equivalents/g) in sand was positively associated with gastrointestinal (GI) illness (aOR = 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2-3.2]) and diarrhea (2.4 [1.4-4.2]). Among those buried in sand, point estimates were greater for GI illness (3.3 [1.3-7.9]) and diarrhea (4.9 [1.8-13]). Positive associations were also observed for culture-based Enterococcus (colony-forming units/g) with GI illness (aOR digging = 1.7 [1.1-2.7]) and diarrhea (2.1 [1.3-3.4]). Associations were not found among nonswimmers with sand exposure.

conclusionsWe observed a positive relationship between sand-contact activities and enteric illness as a function of concentrations of fecal microbial pollution in beach sand.

Indexed as

Bathing BeachesAdolescentAdultAlabamaBacteroidesChildChild, PreschoolClostridiumEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsEnterococcusEnvironmental MicrobiologyFecesFemaleHumansInfantMaleSilicon Dioxide

Identifiers

PMID22157306
PMCPMC3240855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.