ArticleJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene2018
Isolation of
Article in Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender and sex differences in occupation-specific infectious diseases: a systematic review.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Non-tuberculous mycobacteria in cattle: Distribution, antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic implications in Tamil Nadu, India.Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Occupational exposure to livestock and risk of tuberculosis and brucellosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Article
- Tuberculosis patients at the human-animal interface: Potential zooanthroponotic and zoonotic transmission.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Animal Models of Tuberculosis Vaccine Research: An Important Component in the Fight against Tuberculosis.BioMed research international · 2020Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTuberculosis (TB) remains a public health problem in sub-Saharan Africa coupled with dearth of information about the disease among livestock workers at risk of infection. We determined the prevalence of pulmonary TB infection and factors associated with its occurrence among livestock workers in south-western Nigeria.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using active case-finding among livestock workers with sub-clinical pulmonary TB between August 2014 and March 2015. Sputum samples were cultured and subjected to a two-step multiplex-PCR technique based on genus-typing and genomic regions-of-difference. Interviewer-administered questionnaire was utilized in assessing worker's TB related knowledge and practices. Data were analysed using STATA 12.
resultsOverall, 206 livestock workers (traders = 136; butchers = 70) were screened; 5.1% (7/136) of the traders and 7.1% (5/70) of the butchers had positive mycobacterial cultures. Molecular techniques identified one Mycobacterium tuberculosis with six non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) from the traders and four M. tuberculosis with one NTM from the butchers.Participants within the age range of 50 years and above were at higher risk of being infected with TB (OR = 7.7; 95%CI:1.7-35.6) and majority had poor knowledge and practices regarding TB.
conclusionsWe confirmed M. tuberculosis as the cause of pulmonary TB among the livestock workers, with implications for zooanthroponotic transmission of the disease along the human-animal ecosystem interface in Nigeria.
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.