ArticleZoonoses and public health2018
Epidemiological study of people living in rural North Carolina for novel respiratory viruses.
Article in Zoonoses and public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Are adenoviruses zoonotic? A systematic review of the evidence.Emerging microbes & infections · 2019Pooled it
- Epidemiological study of people living in rural North Carolina for novel respiratory viruses.Zoonoses and public health · 2018Article
- Aerosol Sampling in a Hospital Emergency Room Setting: A Complementary Surveillance Method for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses.Frontiers in public health · 2018Article
- The continual threat of influenza virus infections at the human-animal interface: What is new from a one health perspective?Evolution, medicine, and public health · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the last 10 years, scientists have grown increasingly aware that emerging respiratory viruses are often zoonotic in their origin. These infections can originate from or be amplified in livestock. Less commonly recognized are instances when humans have transmitted their respiratory pathogens to animals (reverse zoonoses). Even with this knowledge of viral exchange at the human-livestock interface, few studies have been conducted to understand this cross-over. In this pilot study, we examined persons with influenza-like illness at an outpatient clinic for evidence of infection with novel zoonotic respiratory pathogens in rural North Carolina where there are dense swine and poultry farming. Environmental air sampling was also conducted. From July 2016 to March 2017, a total of 14 human subjects were enrolled and sampled, and 192 bioaerosol samples were collected. Of the 14 human subject samples molecularly tested, three (21.4%) were positive for influenza A, one (7.1%) for influenza B and one (7.1%) for human enterovirus. Of the 192 bioaerosol samples collected and tested by real-time RT-PCR or PCR, three (1.6%) were positive for influenza A and two (1.0%) for adenovirus. No evidence was found for novel zoonotic respiratory viruses.
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.