Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31957632›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2020

Cross-sectional serosurvey of

G Barlozzari, M Sala, F Iacoponi, C Volpi, N Polinori, P Rombolà, F Vairo, G Macrì, M Scarpulla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Molecular characterization ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Molecular and Serological Findings in Sheep During TwoAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Article
  16. Iranian journal of veterinary research · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A Freedom ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
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

9 authors.

G BarlozzariIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana "M. Aleandri", Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3099-8137
M SalaIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana "M. Aleandri", Rome, Italy.
F IacoponiIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana "M. Aleandri", Rome, Italy.
C VolpiIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana "M. Aleandri", Rome, Italy.
N PolinoriIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana "M. Aleandri", Rome, Italy.
P RombolàIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana "M. Aleandri", Rome, Italy.
F VairoRegional Service for Surveillance and Control of Infectious Diseases (SERESMI), National Institute for Infectious Diseases "Lazzaro Spallanzani" IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
G MacrìIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana "M. Aleandri", Rome, Italy.
M ScarpullaIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana "M. Aleandri", Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A cross-sectional survey was carried out to estimate the seroprevalence of Coxiella burnetii in extensively grazed cattle and sheep from central Italy and to identify the related risk factors. Data on notified human Q fever cases in the area were also collected and described. A two-stage cluster sampling was performed. A total of 5083 animals (2210 cattle; 2873 sheep) belonging to 186 farms (92 herds; 94 flocks) were tested for the presence of antibodies against C. burnetii using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit. The prevalence at the animal-level resulted three times higher in sheep compared to cattle (37.8% vs. 12.0%; χ2 = 270.10, P < 0.001). The prevalence at the herd-level was also higher in sheep than in cattle (87.2% vs. 68.5%; χ2 = 9.52, P < 0.01). The multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of seropositivity for cattle aged 67-107 months (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.86-4.18), cattle >107 months of age (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.36-3.14) and mixed breed cattle (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.11-2.72). A herd size >92 animals was recognized as herd-level risk factor in cattle (OR 6.88, 95% CI 1.67-28.37). The risk of being seropositive was double in sheep belonging to flocks >600 animals (odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% CI 1.63-2.56). Sheep were confirmed to be the most exposed species. Nevertheless, the prevalence observed in cattle also suggests the potential involvement of this species in the circulation of the pathogen in the area. Seven confirmed human Q fever cases were reported. In five out of seven cases there was at least one exposed herd within a 5 km buffer. Even though the source of the infection was not identified, the possibility of C. burnetii circulating in the livestock and human population in the study area cannot be overlooked. The integration between veterinary and human surveillance will be crucial to understand the spread of this zoonosis and to support the adoption of appropriate control measures.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, BacterialCattleCattle DiseasesCoxiella burnetiiCross-Sectional StudiesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleHumansItalyMaleQ FeverRisk FactorsSeroepidemiologic StudiesSheepSheep DiseasesAntibodies, BacterialCattleCoxiella burnetiiItalyQ feverseroprevalencesheep

Identifiers

PMID31957632
PMCPMC7019129

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.