ArticlePloS one2025
Hygiene practices in slaughterhouses and public health risk: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- ESBL and carbapenemase-producing enteric pathogens in animal-origin foods: a one health perspective.Folia microbiologica · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSlaughterhouses are facilities where animals are slaughtered for meat production. Poor hygiene practices in these facilities, especially in developing countries, pose significant public health risks. The lack of regulation and substandard conditions can lead to the transmission of diseases from animals to humans, particularly affecting slaughterhouse workers who are in close contact with animals and animal products. A scoping review was conducted to map and summarize existing evidence on hygiene practices in slaughterhouses and evaluate their effectiveness in mitigating public health risks. METHODOLOGY: This review used the Joanna Briggs Institute Collaboration (JBI) scoping review inclusion framework Population Concept and Context (PCC) and PRISMA for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Databases searched included; EBSCO Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE, and grey literature from BASE and Google Scholar. The studies were screened for eligibility and data extracted from included studies using the JBI data extraction chart. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using cross-sectional and prevalence studies quality assessment tools.
resultsFourteen studies were included published between January 2002 and May 2023. These studies were conducted in 10 countries, with one-third (n = 5) originating from Nigeria. Twelve studies used cross-sectional surveys, while one employed a prevalence survey. This review identified common hygiene practices relating to personal hygiene [handwashing with soap and water] and environmental hygiene (cleaning tools and surfaces). Overall, workers' reported that they had good knowledge of hygiene practices; handwashing (95.7%), using protective apparatus (89.7%), and cleaning equipment (89.3%). Studies reported that over half of slaughterhouse workers wore protective clothing. However, much less (12%) reported that they cleaned their knives before and after use, and it was reported that some slaughterhouses disposed of refuse improperly (bush], raising important public health concerns. Only three studies clearly linked slaughterhouse hygiene practices with public health risks.
conclusionImproving hygiene practices in slaughterhouses is crucial for reducing public health risks. Gaps in knowledge, inadequate training, insufficient inspections and poor infrastructure were identified as key areas for improved guidelines and policy intervention.
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.