Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31125350›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Risk factors for H5 avian influenza virus prevalence on urban live bird markets in Jakarta, Indonesia-Evaluation of long-term environmental surveillance data.

Joerg Henning, Uta Walburga Hesterberg, Farida Zenal, Luuk Schoonman, Eric Brum, James McGrane

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Disease Outbreak, Health Scare, and Distance Decay: Evidence from HPAI Shocks in Chinese Meat Sector.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Joerg HenningSchool of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia.
Uta Walburga HesterbergEmergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases (ECTAD), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Jakarta, Java, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-0463-6586
Farida ZenalEmergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases (ECTAD), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Jakarta, Java, Indonesia.
Luuk SchoonmanEmergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases (ECTAD), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Jakarta, Java, Indonesia.
Eric BrumEmergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases (ECTAD), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Jakarta, Java, Indonesia.
James McGraneEmergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases (ECTAD), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Jakarta, Java, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the re-emergence of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), live bird markets have been identified to play a critical role. In this repeated cross-sectional study, we combined surveillance data collected monthly on Jakarta's live bird markets over a five-year period, with risk factors related to the structure and management of live bird markets, the trading and slaughtering of birds at these markets, and environmental and demographic conditions in the areas where the markets were located. Over the study period 36.7% (95% CI: 35.1, 38.3) of samples (N = 1315) tested HPAI H5 virus positive. Using General Estimation Equation approaches to account for repeated observations over time, we explored the association between HPAI H5 virus prevalence and potential risk factors. Markets where only live birds and carcasses were sold, but no slaughtering was conducted at or at the vicinity of the markets, had a significantly reduced chance of being positive for H5 virus (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5). Also, markets, that used display tables for poultry carcasses made from wood, had reduced odds of being H5 virus positive (OR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0), while having at least one duck sample included in the pool of samples collected at the market increased the chance of being H5 virus positive (OR = 5.7, 95% CI 3.6-9.2). Markets where parent stock was traded, were more at risk of being H5 virus positive compared to markets where broilers were traded. Finally, the human population density in the district, the average distance between markets and origins of poultry sold at markets and the total rainfall per month were all positively associated with higher H5 virus prevalence. In summary, our results highlight that a combination of factors related to trading and marketing processes and environmental pressures need to be considered to reduce H5 virus infection risk for customers at urban live bird markets. In particular, the relocation of slaughter areas to well-managed separate locations should be considered.

Indexed as

AnimalsChickensDucksEnvironmental MonitoringHumansIndonesiaInfluenza A virusInfluenza A Virus, H5N1 SubtypeInfluenza in BirdsPoultryPoultry DiseasesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID31125350
PMCPMC6534305

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.