ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiological investigation of a clinical case of Q fever in the Brazilian Amazon.Parasite epidemiology and control · 2026Article
- Serological Evidence of WidespreadVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Assessing the evidence for effective biosafety risk management inOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Review
- Aortic Root Abscess Secondary to Coxiella burnetii Following TAVR: A Case Requiring the Hemi-Commando Procedure.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Bartonella spp., Coxiella burnetii and Rickettsia rickettsii in urban bats: molecular investigation of neglected zoonoses in Brazil.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025Article
- Assessing Q Fever Exposure in Veterinary Professionals: A Study on Seroprevalence and Awareness in Portugal, 2024.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- One Health approach toFrontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Unveiling Q fever in Latin America: beyond occupational risks to vulnerable populations and environmental transmission.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although occupational exposure to Methods: Accordingly, the present study aimed to serologically assess professionals with daily contact with free-living and captive wildlife in Paraná State, Brazil, along with the potential associated risk factors for Results: Overall, 25 out of 309 (8.1%) wildlife professionals were seropositive, including 6/54 (11.1%) national and 7/125 (5.6%) state park employees, 6/92 (6.5%) zookeepers, and 6/38 (15.8%) animal service workers, with titers ranging from 32 to 128. No statistical association was found between seropositivity and associated risk factors, including the working location. Discussion: Our results differ from those of previous studies in Brazil, which found 8/893 (0.9%) indigenous, 1/18 (5.5%) police officers, and 44/200 (22.0%) former Black slaves to be seropositive. This study is the first serological investigation of
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.