ArticleEpidemiology and infection2013
Owner-collected swabs of pets: a method fit for the purpose of zoonoses research.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The transmission risk of multidrug-resistant organisms between hospital patients and their pets - a case-control study, Germany, 2019 to 2022.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024Article
- Prevalence and risk factors for common respiratory pathogens within a cohort of pet cats in the UK.The Journal of small animal practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As part of the preparation of a large cohort study in the entire German population, this study examined the feasibility of cat and dog owners collecting nasal and oral swabs of their animals at home as a method of assessing exposure to zoonoses. In veterinary clinics in Hannover, Germany, 100 pet owners were recruited. Nasal and oral swabs of pets were taken by a veterinarian at the clinic and owners took swabs at home. Swabs were analysed regarding bacterial growth and compared (owner vs. vet) using Cohen's kappa and McNemar's test. The return rate of kits was 92%, and 77% of owners thought it unnecessary to have veterinarian assistance to swab the mouth. McNemar's test results: oral swabs 78% agreement with Gram-positive bacterial growth, 87% agreement with Gram-negative bacterial growth; with similar results for nasal swabs. Although sample quality differed, this method allowed the receipt of swabs from pets in order to obtain information about colonization with zoonotic pathogens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.