ArticlePloS one2018
A cross sectional study on Dutch layer farms to investigate the prevalence and potential risk factors for different Chlamydia species.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and Genetic Characteristics of Avian Chlamydia in Birds in Guangxi, Southwestern China.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Molecular detection of Chlamydiales organisms in ruminant abortions in Brazil.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025Article
- Chlamydiosis in Animals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- The Emergence Potential ofArchives of Razi Institute · 2024Review
- Belgian Cross-Sectional Epidemiological Study on Zoonotic AvianMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- New insight on chlamydiae.Journal of veterinary research · 2023Article
- A molecular survey of Chlamydia spp. infection in commercial poultry and detection of Chlamydia pneumoniae in a commercial turkey flock in Iran.Veterinary medicine and science · 2023Article
- Proof of concept for multiplex detection of antibodies against Chlamydia species in chicken serum using a bead-based suspension array with peptides as antigens.Veterinary research · 2023Article
- Prevalence of New and Established Avian Chlamydial Species in Humans and Their Psittacine Pet Birds in Belgium.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Molecular characterization ofEpidemiology and infection · 2022Article
- Chlamydia Species and Related Risk Factors in Poultry in North-Western Italy: Possible Bird-to-Human Transmission forInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Experimental inoculation of chicken broilers with C. gallinacea strain 15-56/1.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Experimental Chlamydia gallinacea infection in chickens does not protect against a subsequent experimental Chlamydia psittaci infection.Veterinary research · 2021Article
- Article
- Genetic and phenotypic analysis of the pathogenic potential of two novel Chlamydia gallinacea strains compared to Chlamydia psittaci.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A Review of Chlamydial Infections in Wild Birds.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Urogenital chlamydia trachomatis treatment failure with azithromycin: A meta-analysis.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2019Review
- Review
- Article
- Chlamydia psittaci and C. avium in feral pigeon (Columba livia domestica) droppings in two cities in the Netherlands.The veterinary quarterly · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In poultry several Chlamydia species have been detected, but Chlamydia psittaci and Chlamydia gallinacea appear to be most prevalent and important. Chlamydia psittaci is a well-known zoonosis and is considered to be a pathogen of poultry. Chlamydia gallinacea has been described more recently. Its avian pathogenicity and zoonotic potential have to be further elucidated. Within the Netherlands no data were available on the presence of Chlamydia on poultry farms. As part of a surveillance programme for zoonotic pathogens in farm animals, we investigated pooled faecal samples from 151 randomly selected layer farms. On a voluntary base, 69 farmers, family members or farm workers from these 151 farms submitted a throat swab. All samples were tested with a generic 23S Chlamydiaceae PCR followed by a species specific PCR for C. avium, C. gallinacea and C. psittaci. C. avium and psittaci DNA was not detected at any of the farms. At 71 farms the positive result could be confirmed as C. gallinacea. Variables significantly associated with the presence of C. gallinacea in a final multivariable model were 'age of hens,' 'use of bedding material' and 'the presence of horses.' The presence of C. gallinacea was associated with neither clinical signs, varying from respiratory symptoms, nasal and ocular discharges to diarrhoea, nor with a higher mortality rate the day before the visit. All throat swabs from farmers, family members or farm workers tested negative for Chlamydia DNA, giving no further indication for possible bird-to-human (or human-to-bird) transmission.
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.