ArticleBMC microbiology2026
Prevalence, quantification, and household-level risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection in chickens in Boussouma commune, Burkina Faso.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVillage chicken production is central to rural livelihoods across sub-Saharan Africa. However, the poor biosecurity and hygiene observed in the chicken flocks, coupled with the limited access of farmers to veterinary services, provide favorable conditions for the persistence and transmission of zoonotic pathogens such as Salmonella spp. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of Salmonella in village chicken flocks; quantify fecal bacterial loads; and identify household – and flock-level risk factors associated with Salmonella spp. infection in the Boussouma commune in rural Burkina Faso.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in 73 poultry-keeping households. Cecal contents were collected from 292 indigenous chickens following humane euthanasia. Laboratory analysis was carried out using the ISO 6579:2012 standard methods. Quantification of Salmonella spp. In fecal matters, it was done using the Most Probable Number (MPN) method. Structured household interviews captured data on poultry management, hygiene practices, flock characteristics, and household demographics. Multivariate logistic and linear regression models were used to assess associations between household- and flock-level practices with Salmonella spp. presence and bacterial load.
resultsThe animal-level prevalence of Salmonella spp. in chicken faeces was 57.2% (95% CI: 51.5–62.9). Salmonella spp. loads in faeces ranged from 0.03 to 10.99 MPN/g (mean = 0.63 MPN/g). In multivariate logistic regression, lack of access to veterinary care (OR = 3.77; p = 0.001), on-site accumulation of poultry manure (OR = 5.61; p = 0.011), and burial of dead chickens within the household compound (OR = 1.92; p = 0.024) were associated with increased odds of infection. Protective factors included improved access to water (OR = 0.46; p = 0.020) and removal of manure from the household environment (OR = 0.44; p = 0.013). Chickens from male-headed households had lower odds of infection (OR = 0.22; p = 0.029). Higher Salmonella spp. loads were associated with poor hygiene, limited water access, and lack of veterinary care.
conclusionThe findings highlight critical, context-specific points of intervention for reducing zoonotic transmission risks at the animal-household interface. Targeted community-level hygiene promotion, improved water access, safer carcass and manure management, and strengthening of village-level veterinary services are essential to mitigate public health risks linked to village poultry production.
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.