Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24298326›Full record

ArticleInfection ecology & epidemiology2013

Risk practices for animal and human anthrax in Bangladesh: an exploratory study.

Md Saiful Islam, M Jahangir Hossain, Andrea Mikolon, Shahana Parveen, M Salah Uddin Khan, Najmul Haider, Apurba Chakraborty, Abu Mohammad Naser Titu, M Waliur Rahman, Hossain M S Sazzad and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection ecology & epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. One Health Assessment ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Landscape of Anthrax Prevention and Control: Stakeholders' Perceptive in Odisha, India.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Md Saiful IslamCentre for Communicable Diseases, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
M Jahangir Hossain
Andrea Mikolon
Shahana Parveen
M Salah Uddin Khan
Najmul Haider
Apurba Chakraborty
Abu Mohammad Naser Titu
M Waliur Rahman
Hossain M S Sazzad
Mahmudur Rahman
Emily S Gurley
Stephen P Luby
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDInstitute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research · BD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFrom August 2009 to October 2010, International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh and the Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research together investigated 14 outbreaks of anthrax which included 140 animal and 273 human cases in 14 anthrax-affected villages. Our investigation objectives were to explore the context in which these outbreaks occurred, including livestock rearing practices, human handling of sick and dead animals, and the anthrax vaccination program.

methodsField anthropologists used qualitative data-collection tools, including 15 hours of unstructured observations, 11 key informant interviews, 32 open-ended interviews, and 6 group discussions in 5 anthrax-affected villages.

resultsEach cattle owner in the affected communities raised a median of six ruminants on their household premises. The ruminants were often grazed in pastures and fed supplementary rice straw, green grass, water hyacinth, rice husk, wheat bran, and oil cake; lactating cows were given dicalcium phosphate. Cattle represented a major financial investment. Since Islamic law forbids eating animals that die from natural causes, when anthrax-infected cattle were moribund, farmers often slaughtered them on the household premises while they were still alive so that the meat could be eaten. Farmers ate the meat and sold it to neighbors. Skinners removed and sold the hides from discarded carcasses. Farmers discarded the carcasses and slaughtering waste into ditches, bodies of water, or open fields. Cattle in the affected communities did not receive routine anthrax vaccine due to low production, poor distribution, and limited staffing for vaccination.

conclusionSlaughtering anthrax-infected animals and disposing of butchering waste and carcasses in environments where ruminants live and graze, combined with limited vaccination, provided a context that permitted repeated anthrax outbreaks in animals and humans. Because of strong financial incentives, slaughtering moribund animals and discarding carcasses and waste products will likely continue. Long-term vaccination coverage for at-risk animal populations may reduce anthrax infection.

Indexed as

anthraxBangladeshqualitativeruminantsvulture

Identifiers

PMID24298326
PMCPMC3843109
OpenAlexW1995869430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.