Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30001331›Full record

ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Animal influence on water, sanitation and hygiene measures for zoonosis control at the household level: A systematic literature review.

Francisco Matilla, Yael Velleman, Wendy Harrison, Mandy Nevel

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Microorganisms · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A One Health Approach to Child Stunting: Evidence and Research Agenda.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2021
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Pandemics Throughout History.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Francisco MatillaDepartment of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8289-1510
Yael VellemanPolicy and Campaigns Department, WaterAid, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0075-2424
Wendy HarrisonFaculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Mandy NevelDepartment of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.
Royal Veterinary College · GBImperial College London · GBWaterAid · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNeglected zoonotic diseases (NZDs) have a significant impact on the livelihoods of the world's poorest populations, which often lack access to basic services. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) programmes are included among the key strategies for achieving the World Health Organization's 2020 Roadmap for Implementation for control of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs). There exists a lack of knowledge regarding the effect of animals on the effectiveness of WASH measures.

objectivesThis review looked to identify how animal presence in the household influences the effectiveness of water, hygiene and sanitation measures for zoonotic disease control in low and middle income countries; to identify gaps of knowledge regarding this topic based on the amount and type of studies looking at this particular interaction.

methodsStudies from three databases (Medline, Web of Science and Global Health) were screened through various stages. Selected articles were required to show burden of one or more zoonotic diseases, an animal component and a WASH component. Selected articles were analysed. A narrative synthesis was chosen for the review.

resultsOnly two studies out of 7588 met the inclusion criteria. The studies exemplified how direct or indirect contact between animals and humans within the household can influence the effectiveness of WASH interventions. The analysis also shows the challenges faced by the scientific community to isolate and depict this particular interaction.

conclusionThe dearth of studies examining animal-WASH interactions is explained by the difficulties associated with studying environmental interventions and the lack of collaboration between the WASH and Veterinary Public Health research communities. Further tailored research under a holistic One Health approach will be required in order to meet the goals set in the NTDs Roadmap and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Indexed as

AnimalsFamily CharacteristicsHumansHygieneNeglected DiseasesSanitationSustainable DevelopmentWater SupplyZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID30001331
PMCPMC6057674
OpenAlexW2821235909

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.