SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2018
Laboratory methods for case finding in human psittacosis outbreaks: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global prevalence of psittacosis in outbreaks: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical features and prognostic predictors of C. Psittaci Pneumonia: a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Animal sources for zoonotic transmission of psittacosis: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Pooled it
- Rapid diagnosis ofExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Chlamydia psittaci Meningitis, Chile, 2023.Emerging infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Targeted next-generation sequencing improves diagnosis and antimicrobial stewardship in Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Observational
- One-step detection of Chlamydia psittaci using recombinase polymerase amplification and CRISPR/Cas12b.AMB Express · 2026Article
- Early diagnosis and therapy of Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia: insights from chest CT, tNGS, and omadacycline in 34 cases.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Successful azithromycin treatment ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Clinical Features of 186 Cases ofInfection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Psittacosis pneumonia with the reversed halo sign: a case report and literature review.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Community-AcquiredCase reports in infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Zoonotic potential ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Epidemiological characteristics of human psittacosis in Guangzhou, China, January 2021 to June 2024.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Epidemiological features and risk factors of human psittacosis in Hangzhou City, eastern China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Diagnosis ofFrontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Atypical pneumonia (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics between COVID-19 and Chlamydia psittaci pneumonia: a multicenter retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPsittacosis outbreak investigations require rapid identification of cases in order to trace possible sources and perform public health risk assessments. In recent outbreaks in the Netherlands, such investigations were hampered by the non-specificity of laboratory testing methods to identify human Chlamydia psittaci infections.
methodA systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases of literature published between 01 January, 1986 and 03 July, 2017 was done to find best practices of laboratory-testing methods used in psittacosis outbreaks of two or more human cases. Reference lists of included articles were hand searched to identify additional articles.
resultsThirty-seven eligible articles were identified, describing 44 human psittacosis outbreaks in 12 countries. Laboratory tests performed were PCR (with various targets), serologic tests (complement binding reactions, ELISA's, immunofluorescence tests and immuno-peroxidase tests) and culture, in various combinations. The literature provided no 'gold standard' laboratory testing strategy to identify recent human C. psittaci infections. In most psittacosis outbreaks, for a considerable number of cases (or tested individuals in an exposed cohort), C. psittaci infection could not be confirmed, nor excluded as causative pathogen. None of the testing strategies was found to be suitable for (nearly) full case finding.
conclusionPCR enables rapid identification of human psittacosis patients and helps source finding by genotyping but has the disadvantage that sensitivity is high only in the acute phase. In outbreak situations, there is often a time delay and therefore, there is a need for new serologic testing methods next to PCR, with good specificity and sensitivity. Moreover, serum is easier to collect than the preferred diagnostic materials for PCR. A serologic test that can reliably confirm infection status without the necessity of convalescent serum sampling would enhance case finding, source tracing, identification of risk factors and assessment of burden of disease in various settings.
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.