ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Q Fever: Who Is at Risk? A Serological Survey in the General Population and Occupationally Exposed Individuals in Northern Italy.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serological Evidence of WidespreadVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Seroprevalence of Q fever among humans and animals in East Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.One health outlook · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQ fever is a zoonotic disease caused by the intracellular bacterium
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the risk of Q fever infection in northern Italy by comparing the seroprevalence rates between professionally exposed individuals and not professionally exposed people.
methodsA total of 209 serum samples were analysed: 117 from exposed professionals (veterinarians, biologists, agronomists, laboratory technicians) and 92 from professionally unexposed people (control group). Serum samples were tested with a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect the presence of IgG against
resultsIn total, 10 of the 117 exposed individuals tested positive, yielding a seroprevalence of 8.6%, while only 1 of the 92 control subjects tested positive (1.1%). These findings indicate a significantly higher occupational risk of
conclusionsThe results highlight the need for preventive measures and surveillance in at-risk occupational groups.
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.