Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36532676›Full record

ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022

Evaluation of the use of alternative sample types for mosquito-borne flavivirus surveillance: Using Usutu virus as a model.

Nnomzie C Atama, Irina V Chestakova, Erwin de Bruin, Tijs J van den Berg, Emmanuelle Munger, Chantal Reusken, Bas B Oude Munnink, Henk van der Jeugd, Judith M A van den Brand, Marion P G Koopmans and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. 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
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Long-Term Surveillance ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nnomzie C AtamaViroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Irina V ChestakovaViroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erwin de BruinViroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Tijs J van den BergVogeltrekstation - Dutch Centre for Avian Migration and Demography, NIOO-KNAW, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Emmanuelle MungerViroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Chantal ReuskenCentre for Infectious Diseases Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Bas B Oude MunninkViroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Henk van der JeugdVogeltrekstation - Dutch Centre for Avian Migration and Demography, NIOO-KNAW, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Judith M A van den BrandDivision of Pathology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marion P G KoopmansViroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Reina S SikkemaViroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Dutch Centre for Field Ornithology · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wild birds are reservoirs of several zoonotic arboviruses including West Nile virus (WNV) and Usutu virus (USUV), and are often monitored as indicators for virus introduction and spread. To optimize the bird surveillance for arboviruses in the Netherlands and to explore the possibilities for citizen science in surveillance, we investigated the suitability of using alternative sample types from live and dead birds. The sensitivity of molecular detection via RT-PCR of viral RNA in feather, heart, lung, throat and cloaca swabs from dead birds, and serum, dried blood spots (DBS) and throat and cloaca swabs from live birds were compared. IgY antibody detection was also assessed from DBS relative to serum on protein-microarray and virus neutralization test. Feathers showed a high detection sensitivity for USUV RNA in both live and dead birds, and no significant decrease was observed in the RNA loads in the feathers after being stored dry at room temperature for 43 days. Additionally, viral RNAs extracted from feathers of day 0 and 43 were successfully sequenced. The results indicated no statistical significant difference in sensitivity and viral loads detection in heart, spleen, and lung relative to corresponding brain samples in dead birds. In live birds, viral RNA loads did not differ between throat and cloaca swabs. This study identified less-invasive sample types that allows involvement of citizens in collecting samples from wild birds for arbovirus surveillance. Sensitivity and specificity of DBS-based antibody detections were significantly lower and therefore need optimization.

Indexed as

ArbovirusesFlavivirusSurveillanceUsutu virusWest Nile virusWild birds

Identifiers

PMID36532676
PMCPMC9754934
OpenAlexW4309335571

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.