ArticleEpidemiology and infection2025
Case-control study of leptospirosis in Aotearoa New Zealand reveals behavioural, occupational, and environmental risk factors.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The association between rainfall and human leptospirosis in Aotearoa New Zealand.Epidemiology and infection · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Leptospirosis in NZ has historically been associated with male workers in livestock industries; however, the disease epidemiology is changing. This study identified risk factors amid these shifts. Participants (95 cases:300 controls) were recruited nationwide between 22 July 2019 and 31 January 2022, and controls were frequency-matched by sex (90% male) and rurality (65% rural). Multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for sex, rurality, age, and season-with one model additionally including occupational sector-identified risk factors including contact with dairy cattle (aOR 2.5; CI: 1.0-6.0), activities with beef cattle (aOR 3.0; 95% CI: 1.1-8.2), cleaning urine/faeces from yard surfaces (aOR 3.9; 95% CI: 1.5-10.3), uncovered cuts/scratches (aOR 4.6; 95% CI: 1.9-11.7), evidence of rodents (aOR 2.2; 95% CI: 1.0-5.0), and work water supply from multiple sources-especially creeks/streams (aOR 7.8; 95% CI: 1.5-45.1) or roof-collected rainwater (aOR 6.6; 95% CI: 1.4-33.7). When adjusted for occupational sector, risk factors remained significant except for contact with dairy cattle, and slaughter without gloves emerged as a risk (aOR 3.3; 95% CI: 0.9-12.9). This study highlights novel behavioural factors, such as uncovered cuts and inconsistent glove use, alongside environmental risks from rodents and natural water sources.
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.