ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2023
Fungal isolation and identification from parrot excreta in northeast Iran: A threat to human health.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic case report of aspergillosis (Aspergillus sp.) (Michelli, 1729) in budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus) (Shaw, 1805).Veterinary research communications · 2026Article
- Fungal diversity isolated from the gastrointestinal tract of psittacines kept as pets: a potential public health risk?Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025Article
- Geographical distribution of Cryptococcus neoformans in Iran, pathogenic factors, and antifungal susceptibility profile.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Fungal isolation and identification from parrot excreta in northeast Iran: A threat to human health.Veterinary medicine and science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the environmental sources of pathogenic fungi is parrot droppings.
objectivesThus, this work aimed to investigate fungal contamination in parrots' droppings.
methodsSeventy-nine parrot droppings including Cockatiel, Cockatoo, Green check conure, Love bird, Budgerigar, African grey parrot, Alexandrine parakeet, Amazon parrot, Yellow crown parakeet, and Macaw were sampled, and suspended 1:10 in saline solution and then 0.5 mL of supernatant was cultured. The fungi were identified by standard mycological techniques.
resultsFungal contamination was detected in 66 samples (83.54%) out of 79 samples. Yeast and mould fungi were respectively isolated from 44 samples (55.69%) and 36 samples (45.56%) out of 79 samples. Overall 105 fungal isolates were isolated from parrot excreta. Cryptococcus neoformans (17.14%), Rhizopus spp. (10.47%), Rhodotorula spp. and Aspergillus niger (6.66%), and Penicillium spp. (5.71%) were the most fungi isolated from faecal samples.
conclusionsThe evidence from this study suggests that the rate of fungal contamination in parrots' excreta was high. Keeping parrots in the house and their close contact with humans can double the importance of these contaminations and provide the basis for the transmission of contamination to humans. Therefore, the accumulations of parrot faeces for long periods suggest a potential threat to public health.
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.