Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40329995›Full record

ReviewCritical reviews in environmental science and technology2025

Beyond borders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human-specific faecal markers across geographical settings.

Leah R Barrett, Paris Beasy, Yussi M Palacios Delgado, John D Boyce, Karin Leder, David T McCarthy, Rebekah Henry

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical reviews in environmental science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Leah R BarrettDepartment of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7465-1672
Paris BeasyDepartment of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5361-0944
Yussi M Palacios DelgadoDepartment of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8291-8779
John D BoyceBiomedicine Discovery Institute, Department of Microbiology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8614-3074
Karin LederSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1368-1039
David T McCarthyDepartment of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8845-6501
Rebekah HenryDepartment of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6530-8557

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human fecal waste is a global health risk associated with diarrheal diseases, responsible for approximately 1.2 million deaths annually. Microbial Source Tracking (MST) is a molecular method that evaluates environmental sources of fecal contamination, aiding quantification of this contamination and associated health risks. However, reported variations in global human gut microbiomes and geographic performance of human-specific fecal markers suggest that current MST targets may not have broad applicability across populations. This systematic review quantified the performance of human-specific fecal markers to identify those suitable for use across various geographic regions. We evaluated data from primary research articles, published before 18

Indexed as

Fecal pollutionhuman-specific fecal markerHyunjung Nick Kimmarker performancemarker validationmicrobial source tracking

Identifiers

PMID40329995
PMCPMC12051442

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.