ArticleBMJ open2020
Who is at risk of occupational Q fever: new insights from a multi-profession cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Prevalence ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021Pooled it
- Seroprevalence of Q fever among humans and animals in East Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.One health outlook · 2026Review
- Seroprevalence ofVeterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Environmental risk factors of human Q fever in Spain.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Sero-epidemiology of Coxiella burnetii in livestock and humans in Isiolo county Kenya.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Q Fever: Who Is at Risk? A Serological Survey in the General Population and Occupationally Exposed Individuals in Northern Italy.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Herd-level seroprevalence, molecular prevalence, and trends ofVeterinary world · 2024Article
- First Insight into the Prevalence ofInfectious disease reports · 2024Article
- Epidemiology of Q fever in humans in four selected regions, Spain, 2016 to 2022.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024Article
- A systematic review of global Q fever outbreaks.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Review
- First serological evidence of Q fever in large ruminants and its associated risk factors in Punjab, Pakistan.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Endemicity ofHeliyon · 2022Article
- Seroprevalence of vector-borne pathogens in outdoor workers from southern Italy and associated occupational risk factors.Parasites & vectors · 2022Article
- Seroprevalence and Molecular Evidence ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Coxiella burnetii abortion in a dairy farm selling artisanal cheese directly to consumers and review of Q fever as a bovine abortifacient in South America and a human milk-borne disease.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2021Review
- Q Fever: A troubling disease and a challenging diagnosis.Clinical microbiology newsletter · 2021Article
- Q fever prevention and vaccination: Australian livestock farmers' knowledge and attitudes to inform a One Health approach.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Potential of RecombinantMicroorganisms · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesQ fever is a zoonosis caused by the bacterium
designWe carried out a cross-sectional study.
settingThe study included shepherds, cattle farmers, veterinarians and obstetricians from Thuringia.
participants77 shepherds, 74 veterinarians, 14 cattle farmers, 17 office employees and 68 obstetricians participated. The control group consisted of 92 blood donors. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was
resultsOf the 250 blood samples we analysed, the very highest seroprevalences (64%-77%) occurred in individuals with frequent animal contact. There were no significant differences between shepherds, cattle farmers and veterinarians. The seroprevalence in people working in administration was lower but still significantly greater than the control. No obstetricians or midwives tested positive.
conclusionsShepherds, cattle farmers and veterinarians have a high risk of
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.