ArticlePloS one2014
Surveillance of influenza viruses in waterfowl used as decoys in Andalusia, Spain.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Avian influenza.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017Article
- Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): low pathogenic avian influenza.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017Article
- Biosurveillance of avian influenza and Newcastle disease viruses in the Barda region of Azerbaijan using real time RT-PCR and hemagglutination inhibition.Frontiers in microbiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A longitudinal study was carried out to determine the seroprevalence of avian influenza viruses (AIVs) in waterfowl used as decoys in Andalusia, southern Spain. A total of 2319 aquatic birds from 193 flocks were analyzed before and after the hunting season 2011-2012. In the first sampling, 403 out of 2319 (18.0%, CI95%: 15.8-19.0) decoys showed antibodies against AIVs by ELISA. The AI seroprevalence was significantly higher in geese (21.0%) than in ducks (11.7%) (P<0.001). Besides, the spatial distribution of AIVs was not homogeneous as significant differences among regions were observed. The prevalence of antibodies against AIVs subtypes H5 and H7 were 1.1% and 0.3%, respectively, using hemagglutination inhibition test (HI). The overall and H5 seroprevalences slightly increased after the hunting period (to 19.2% and 1.4%, respectively), while the H7 seroprevalence remained at the same level (0.3%). The proportion of flocks infected by AIVs was 65.3%, while 11.2% and 4.9% of flocks were positive for H5 and H7, respectively. Viral shedding was not detected in any of the 47 samples positive by both ELISA and HI, tested by RRT-PCR. The individual incidence after the hunting season was 3.4%. The fact that 57 animals seroconverted, 15 of which were confirmed by HI (12 H5 and 3 H7), was indication of contact with AIVs during the hunting period. The results indicate that waterfowl used as decoys are frequently exposed to AIVs and may be potentially useful as sentinels for AIVs monitoring. The seroprevalence detected and the seropositivity against AIVs H5 and H7, suggest that decoys can act as reservoirs of AIVs, which may be of animal and public health concern.
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.