ArticleEpidemiology and infection2021
Prevalence of
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigation ofArchives of Razi Institute · 2025Article
- Navigating Q fever: Current perspectives and challenges in outbreak preparedness.Open veterinary journal · 2024Review
- Efficacy and Safety of an Inactivated Phase IAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Article
- Review
- Urban landscape and infection risk in free-roaming cats.Zoonoses and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cats represent a potential source of Coxiella burnetii, the aetiological agent of Q fever in humans. The prevalence and risk factors of C. burnetii infection in farm, pet and feral cats were studied in Quebec, Canada, using a cross-sectional study. Serum samples were tested using a specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the presence of antibodies against C. burnetii, whereas rectal swabs were assayed using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for the molecular detection of the bacteria. Potential risk factors for farm cats were investigated using clinical examinations, questionnaires and results from a concurrent study on C. burnetii farm status. A total of 184 cats were tested: 59 from ruminant farms, 73 pets and 52 feral cats. Among farm cats, 2/59 (3.4%) were ELISA-positive, 3/59 (5.1%) were ELISA-doubtful and 1/59 (1.7%) was qPCR-positive. All pets and feral cats were negative to C. burnetii ELISA and qPCR. Farm cat positivity was associated with a positive C. burnetii status on the ruminant farm (prevalence ratio = 7.6, P = 0.03). Our results suggest that although pet and feral cats do not seem to pose a great C. burnetii risk to public health, more active care should be taken when in contact with cats from ruminant farms.
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.