Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32652790›Full record

SynthesisTransboundary and emerging diseases2021

A literature review of the use of environmental sampling in the surveillance of avian influenza viruses.

Grace Hood, Xavier Roche, Aurélie Brioudes, Sophie von Dobschuetz, Folorunso Oludayo Fasina, Wantanee Kalpravidh, Yilma Makonnen, Juan Lubroth, Leslie Sims

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Grace HoodFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Xavier RocheFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Aurélie BrioudesFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sophie von DobschuetzFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3038-1102
Folorunso Oludayo FasinaFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Wantanee KalpravidhFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Yilma MakonnenFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Sub-Regional Office for Eastern Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Juan LubrothFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Leslie SimsAsia Pacific Veterinary Information Services, Melbourne, Australia.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations · ITServices Australia · AUUNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office · THUnited Nations Economic Commission for Africa · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This literature review provides an overview of use of environmental samples (ES) such as faeces, water, air, mud and swabs of surfaces in avian influenza (AI) surveillance programs, focussing on effectiveness, advantages and gaps in knowledge. ES have been used effectively for AI surveillance since the 1970s. Results from ES have enhanced understanding of the biology of AI viruses in wild birds and in markets, of links between human and avian influenza, provided early warning of viral incursions, allowed assessment of effectiveness of control and preventive measures, and assisted epidemiological studies in outbreaks, both avian and human. Variation exists in the methods and protocols used, and no internationally recognized guidelines exist on the use of ES and data management. Few studies have performed direct comparisons of ES versus live bird samples (LBS). Results reported so far demonstrate reliance on ES will not be sufficient to detect virus in all cases when it is present, especially when the prevalence of infection/contamination is low. Multiple sample types should be collected. In live bird markets, ES from processing/selling areas are more likely to test positive than samples from bird holding areas. When compared to LBS, ES is considered a cost-effective, simple, rapid, flexible, convenient and acceptable way of achieving surveillance objectives. As a non-invasive technique, it can minimize effects on animal welfare and trade in markets and reduce impacts on wild bird communities. Some limitations of environmental sampling methods have been identified, such as the loss of species-specific or information on the source of virus, and taxonomic-level analyses, unless additional methods are applied. Some studies employing ES have not provided detailed methods. In others, where ES and LBS are collected from the same site, positive results have not been assigned to specific sample types. These gaps should be remedied in future studies.

Indexed as

Animals, WildBirdsSampling StudiesAnimalsEnvironmental MonitoringEpidemiological MonitoringInfluenza A virusInfluenza in BirdsPrevalenceavian Influenzaenvironmental samplingepidemiological monitoringsurveillance

Identifiers

PMID32652790
PMCPMC8048529
OpenAlexW3042016863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.