Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27820824›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

Potential Risk Factors Associated with Human Cystic Echinococcosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Alessia Possenti, Raúl Manzano-Román, Carlos Sánchez-Ovejero, Belgees Boufana, Giuseppe La Torre, Mar Siles-Lucas, Adriano Casulli

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 165 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Five-Year Slaughterhouse-Based Surveillance ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. The European Union One Health 2024 Zoonoses Report.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Alessia PossentiDepartment of Infectious, Parasitic and Immunomediated Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), Rome, Italy.
Raúl Manzano-RománInstituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiologia de Salamanca, IRNASA-CSIC, Salamanca, Spain.
Carlos Sánchez-OvejeroInstituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiologia de Salamanca, IRNASA-CSIC, Salamanca, Spain.
Belgees BoufanaDepartment of Infectious, Parasitic and Immunomediated Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe La TorreSapienza University of Rome, Department of Public health and Infectious Diseases, Rome, Italy.
Mar Siles-LucasInstituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiologia de Salamanca, IRNASA-CSIC, Salamanca, Spain.
Adriano CasulliDepartment of Infectious, Parasitic and Immunomediated Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), Rome, Italy.
Instituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiología de Salamanca · ESEuropean Hospital · ITIstituto Superiore di Sanità · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITWorld Health Organization - Italy · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScientific literature on cystic echinococcosis (CE) reporting data on risk factors is limited and to the best of our knowledge, no global evaluation of human CE risk factors has to date been performed. This systematic review (SR) summarizes available data on statistically relevant potential risk factors (PRFs) associated with human CE. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsDatabase searches identified 1,367 papers, of which thirty-seven were eligible for inclusion. Of these, eight and twenty-nine were case-control and cross-sectional studies, respectively. Among the eligible papers, twenty-one were included in the meta-analyses. Pooled odds ratio (OR) were used as a measure of effect and separately analysed for the two study designs. PRFs derived from case-control studies that were significantly associated with higher odds of outcome were "dog free to roam" (OR 5.23; 95% CI 2.45-11.14), "feeding dogs with viscera" (OR 4.69; 95% CI 3.02-7.29), "slaughter at home" (OR 4.67; 95% CI 2.02-10.78) or at "slaughterhouses" (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.15-6.3), "dog ownership" (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.27-9.85), "living in rural areas" (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.16-2.9) and "low income" (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.02-2.76). Statistically significant PRFs from cross-sectional studies with higher odds of outcome were "age >16 years" (OR 6.08; 95% CI 4.05-9.13), "living in rural areas" (OR 2.26; 95% CI 1.41-3.61), "being female" (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.06-1.8) and "dog ownership" (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.01-1.86). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Living in endemic rural areas, in which free roaming dogs have access to offal and being a dog-owner, seem to be among the most significant PRFs for acquiring this parasitic infection. Results of data analysed here may contribute to our understanding of the PRFs for CE and may potentially be useful in planning community interventions aimed at controlling CE in endemic areas.

Indexed as

Age FactorsAnimalsCase-Control StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualDogsEchinococcosisEchinococcusFemaleHumansRisk FactorsSex FactorsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27820824
PMCPMC5098738
OpenAlexW4213133688

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.