ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021
Sensitivity and representativeness of one-health surveillance for diseases of zoonotic potential at health facilities relative to household visits in rural Guatemala.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- West Nile Virus in Horses as a Sentinel Host in One Health Surveillance: Epidemiological Insights and Future Perspectives.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Human-animal contact and zoonotic exposure from wild and domestic animals: A cross-sectional study in wildlife-rich areas of Bolivia, Chile, and Guatemala.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- The Promotion and Development of One Health at Swiss TPH and Its Greater Potential.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most human and animal disease notification systems are unintegrated and passive, resulting in underreporting. Active surveillance can complement passive efforts, but because they are resource-intensive, their attributes must be evaluated. We assessed the sensitivity and representativeness of One-Health surveillance conducted at health facilities compared to health facilities plus monthly household visits in three rural communities of Guatemala. From September 2017 to November 2018, we screened humans for acute diarrheal, febrile and respiratory infectious syndromes and canines, swine, equines and bovines for syndromic events or deaths. We estimated the relative sensitivity as the incidence rate ratio of detecting an event in health facility surveillance compared to household surveillance from Poisson models. We used interaction terms between the surveillance method and sociodemographic factors or time trends to assess effect modification as a measure of relative representativeness. We used generalized additive models with smoothing splines to model incidence over time by surveillance method. We randomized 216 households to health facility surveillance and 198 to health facility surveillance plus monthly household visits. Health facility surveillance alone was less sensitive than when combined with household surveillance by 0.42 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.53), 0.56 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.79), 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.10), 0.28 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.50) and 0.22 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.92) times for human acute infections, human severe acute infections, and deaths in canines, swine and equines, respectively. Health facility surveillance alone underrepresented Spanish speakers (interaction
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.