ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021
Tuberculosis patients at the human-animal interface: Potential zooanthroponotic and zoonotic transmission.
Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Zoonotic Tuberculosis and Dairy Products: Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Prevalence and Public Health Implications.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Pooled it
- The Dephospho-CoA Kinase ofACS omega · 2026Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of tuberculosis burden and risk factors in Swabi district, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines · 2025Article
- Risk factors associated with zoonotic tuberculosis at the animal-human interface in a tuberculosis-endemic sub-Saharan country.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2023Article
- Evidence, Challenges, and Knowledge Gaps Regarding Latent Tuberculosis in Animals.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Differential Diagnosis of Abdominal Tuberculosis in the Adult-Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman-to-animal transmission of
methodsThis cross-sectional study was nested within two TB contact tracing studies and collected data from 2017 to 2019. TB index patients and their households in three provinces of South Africa were recruited. A questionnaire was administered to households, assessing type and number of animals owned, degree of exposure of animals to humans, and veterinary consultations. For this analysis, we compared descriptive variables by animal-keeping status (animal-keeping vs non-animal keeping households), calculated the chi square and respective
resultsWe visited 1766 households with at least one confirmed case of TB, 33% (587/1766) had livestock or companion animals. Of non-animal-owning households, 2% (27/1161) cared for other community members' livestock. Few (16%, 92/587) households kept animals in their dwelling overnight, while 45% (266/587) kept animals outside the home, but within 10 m of where people slept and ate. Most (81%, 478/587) of people in animal-owning households were willing for their animal/s to have a TB skin test, but <1% (5/587) of animals had been skin-tested; 4% (24/587) of animal-owning households had a veterinary consultation in the past six months, and 5% (31/587) reported one of their animals dying from natural causes in the prior six months.
conclusionOur survey suggests that a high proportion of patients with TB live in settings facilitating close contact with domestic animal species with known susceptibility to
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.