Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32668449›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Survival time of Leptospira kirschneri serovar Grippotyphosa under different environmental conditions.

L H Nau, A Obiegala, N Król, A Mayer-Scholl, M Pfeffer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Pathogens in Raccoon Dogs (Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. White-Toothed Shrews (GenusPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  9. Identification of PathogenicPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

L H NauInstitute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
A ObiegalaInstitute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
N KrólInstitute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
A Mayer-SchollDepartment Biological Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6844-6330
M PfefferInstitute of Animal Hygiene and Veterinary Public Health, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2457-8224

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leptospirosis is a re-emerging zoonotic disease of high medical importance that affects humans worldwide. Humans or animals acquire an infection with pathogenic leptospires either by direct contact with infected animals or by indirect contact to contaminated environment. Survival of Leptospira spp. in the environment after having been shed via animal urine is thus a key factor to estimate the risk of infection, but not much is known about the tenacity of pathogenic leptospires. Here, the survival time of both a laboratory strain and a field strain of L. kirschneri serovar Grippotyphosa in animal urine and their tenacity while drying was investigated and compared at different temperatures (15°C-37°C). Leptospira spp. are also often found in rivers and ponds. As the infection risk for humans and animals also depends on the spreading and survival of Leptospira spp. in these environments, the survival of L. kirschneri serovar Grippotyphosa was investigated using a 50-meter-long hose system simulating a water stream. Both strains did not survive in undiluted cattle or dog urine. Comparing different temperatures and dilution media, the laboratory strain survived the longest in diluted cattle urine with a slightly alkaline pH value (3 days), whilst the field strain survived in diluted dog urine with a slightly acid pH value up to a maximum of 24 h. Both strains did not survive drying on a solid surface. In a water stream, leptospires were able to move faster or slower than the average velocity of the water due to their intrinsic mobility but were not able to survive the mechanical damage caused by running water in the hose system. From our results we conclude, that once excreted via animal urine, the leptospires immediately need moisture or a water body to survive and stay infectious.

Indexed as

AnimalsCattleDog DiseasesDogsFemaleLeptospiraLeptospirosisUrineWaterborne DiseasesWater PollutantsZoonosesWater Pollutants

Identifiers

PMID32668449
PMCPMC7363454

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.