Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38113279›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2023

Effects of cattle on vector-borne disease risk to humans: A systematic review.

Sulagna Chakraborty, Siyu Gao, Brian F Allan, Rebecca Lee Smith

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. First Record ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evolution of tick vaccinology.Parasitology · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sulagna ChakrabortyProgram in Ecology, Evolution & Conservation Biology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; Urbana, Illinois, United Sates of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0905-995X
Siyu GaoSchool of Social Work, The University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minnesota, United Sates of America.
Brian F AllanProgram in Ecology, Evolution & Conservation Biology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; Urbana, Illinois, United Sates of America.
Rebecca Lee SmithProgram in Ecology, Evolution & Conservation Biology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; Urbana, Illinois, United Sates of America.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vector-borne pathogens (VBPs) causing vector-borne diseases (VBDs) can circulate among humans, domestic animals, and wildlife, with cattle in particular serving as an important source of exposure risk to humans. The close associations between humans and cattle can facilitate the transmission of numerous VBPs, impacting public health and economic security. Published studies demonstrate that cattle can influence human exposure risk positively, negatively, or have no effect. There is a critical need to synthesize the information in the scientific literature on this subject, in order to illuminate the various ecological mechanisms that can affect VBP exposure risk in humans. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to review the scientific literature, provide a synthesis of the possible effects of cattle on VBP risk to humans, and propose future directions for research. This study was performed according to the PRISMA 2020 extension guidelines for systematic review. After screening 470 peer-reviewed articles published between 1999-2019 using the databases Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed Central, CABI Global Health, and Google Scholar, and utilizing forward and backward search techniques, we identified 127 papers that met inclusion criteria. Results of the systematic review indicate that cattle can be beneficial or harmful to human health with respect to VBDs depending on vector and pathogen ecology and livestock management practices. Cattle can increase risk of exposure to infections spread by tsetse flies and ticks, followed by sandflies and mosquitoes, through a variety of mechanisms. However, cattle can have a protective effect when the vector prefers to feed on cattle instead of humans and when chemical control measures (e.g., acaricides/insecticides), semio-chemicals, and other integrated vector control measures are utilized in the community. We highlight that further research is needed to determine ways in which these mechanisms may be exploited to reduce VBD risk in humans.

Indexed as

InsecticidesVector Borne DiseasesAnimalsAnimals, WildCattleHumansMosquito VectorsPest ControlInsecticides

Identifiers

PMID38113279
PMCPMC10763968
OpenAlexW4390016134

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.