Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33015306›Full record

ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2020

One Health in the context of coronavirus outbreaks: A systematic literature review.

Dennis Schmiege, Ana Maria Perez Arredondo, Joshua Ntajal, Juliana Minetto Gellert Paris, Merveille Koissi Savi, Krupali Patel, Sandul Yasobant, Timo Falkenberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Improving the ONE HEALTH approach: a lesson from SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Dennis SchmiegeCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Ana Maria Perez ArredondoCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Joshua NtajalCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Juliana Minetto Gellert ParisCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Merveille Koissi SaviCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Krupali PatelCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Sandul YasobantCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
Timo FalkenbergCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic threatens global health thereby causing unprecedented social, economic, and political disruptions. One way to prevent such a pandemic is through interventions at the human-animal-environment interface by using an integrated One Health (OH) approach. This systematic literature review documented the three coronavirus outbreaks, i.e. SARS, MERS, COVID-19, to evaluate the evolution of the OH approach, including the identification of key OH actions taken for prevention, response, and control. The OH understandings identified were categorized into three distinct patterns: institutional coordination and collaboration, OH in action/implementation, and extended OH (i.e. a clear involvement of the environmental domain). Across all studies, OH was most often framed as OH in action/implementation and least often in its extended meaning. Utilizing OH as institutional coordination and collaboration and the extended OH both increased over time. OH actions were classified into twelve sub-groups and further categorized as classical OH actions (i.e. at the human-animal interface), classical OH actions with outcomes to the environment, and extended OH actions. The majority of studies focused on human-animal interaction, giving less attention to the natural and built environment. Different understandings of the OH approach in practice and several practical limitations might hinder current efforts to achieve the operationalization of OH by combining institutional coordination and collaboration with specific OH actions. The actions identified here are a valuable starting point for evaluating the stage of OH development in different settings. This study showed that by moving beyond the classical OH approach and its actions towards a more extended understanding, OH can unfold its entire capacity thereby improving preparedness and mitigating the impacts of the next outbreak.

Indexed as

CollaborationCOVID-19Disease ecologyMERSOne HealthSARS

Identifiers

PMID33015306
PMCPMC7518973

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.