ArticlePLoS currents2018
A Psittacosis Outbreak among English Office Workers with Little or No Contact with Birds, August 2015.
Article in PLoS currents, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Animal sources for zoonotic transmission of psittacosis: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Pooled it
- Rapid diagnosis ofExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Metagenomic profiling of pigeon faecal microbiota: insights into microbial diversity, pathogens, and antimicrobial resistance genes.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2025Article
- COPB1-knockdown induced type I interferon signaling activation inhibitsFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Chlamydia psittaci detected at a live poultry wholesale market in central China.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of psittacosis among cases with complicated or atypical pulmonary infection using metagenomic next-generation sequencing: a multi-center observational study in China.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2023Observational
- Atypical pneumonia caused by Chlamydia psittaci during the COVID-19 pandemic.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Article
- Clinical diagnosis and etiology of patients withFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- A cluster of Psittacosis cases in Lishui, Zhejiang Province, China, in 2021.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- A Review of Chlamydial Infections in Wild Birds.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Severe psittacosis progressing to suspected organizing pneumonia and the role of corticosteroids.Respiratory medicine case reports · 2021Article
- Clinical Analysis of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing ConfirmedInfection and drug resistance · 2021Article
- Metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis of severe pneumonias caused by Chlamydia psittaci.Infection · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOn 14th August 2015 an office manager informed Public Health England of five employees known to have been diagnosed with pneumonia over the previous three weeks. We investigated to establish whether an outbreak occurred and to identify and control the source of infection.
methodsWe undertook case finding for self-reported pneumonia cases at local businesses (July-August 2015). Clinical samples from a hospitalised case were tested for common respiratory pathogens, but returned negative results. Further testing confirmed
resultsWe identified six office workers with pneumonia; four met case definitions (three confirmed, one probable) with symptom onset between 29th July and 4th August 2015. Workplace was the only epidemiological link and only one case reported limited, indirect bird contact. Environmental investigations identified pigeons roosting near the office which were being fed by workers (none cases). DISCUSSION: This was a probable outbreak of psittacosis with no direct bird-to-human contact reported. Cases recovered after receiving appropriate antibiotics. Feeding of pigeons was stopped. A deep clean of office ventilation systems was conducted and workers were advised to avoid bird contact. We hypothesised that indirect environmental exposure to infected pigeons was to the source of this outbreak. This work provides evidence that health professionals should consider psittacosis in the differential diagnosis of cases of severe or atypical respiratory illness even without overt bird contact.
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.