Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40894951›Full record

ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025

Crossing the species barrier: Bidirectional transmission of

Petr Heneberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 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. Genetic diversity and zoonotic transmission potential ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Commensal, pathogen, or passenger? Rethinking the role ofOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Review
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

1 author.

Petr HenebergCharles University, Third Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Objectives: This review synthesizes current evidence on the prevalence of Key findings: Human-associated subtypes (ST1-ST3) are regularly detected in both pets and owners, but most studies rely on low-resolution small subunit ribosomal RNA (SSU rRNA) subtyping. These approaches cannot distinguish between direct inter-host transmission and shared exposure to contaminated sources such as water, rodents, or soil. Data on cats are underrepresented, and nearly all available evidence is cross-sectional, lacks strain-level resolution, and does not incorporate environmental sampling. Although colonization in pets is usually asymptomatic, co-carriage raises questions for households with vulnerable members. Conclusions: Current evidence does not confirm that shared subtypes indicate transmission; co-exposure from common sources is at least as plausible. Research gaps include a lack of longitudinal household studies, limited high-resolution genotyping, and an underrepresentation of feline hosts. A One Health approach incorporating improved molecular tools, behavioral risk assessment, and coordinated surveillance is needed to resolve these uncertainties. Companion animals must be considered within the broader framework of

Indexed as

Blastocystiscompanion animalsFecal–oral transmissionNeglected diseasePet ownershipZoonosis

Identifiers

PMID40894951
PMCPMC12396277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.