ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Understanding the Rift Valley fever exposure risk: A comparative perspective from a multi-country study in East and Central Africa, 2021-24.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a concern in East and Central Africa, particularly following periods of heavy rainfall and flooding. However no human outbreaks have been reported in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). To assess whether this reflects a true absence of virus circulation, we estimated RVF seroprevalence in Goma (eastern DRC) and examined context-specific risk factors, comparing the findings with data from outbreak-prone countries. A two-year longitudinal study, across six health facilities in DRC, Kenya and Uganda, enrolled febrile subjects aged ≥10 years. Human serum samples were analyzed for RVF virus and anti-RVF antibodies. Demographic, behavioral, occupational and environmental factors were evaluated. 4,806 participants were enrolled: 1,370 (28.5%) DRC, 1,468 (30.6%) Kenya and 1,968 (40.9%) Uganda. 253 participants (5.3%) tested positive for RVF by serological and/or molecular assays: 19 (1.4%) DRC, 29 (2.0%) Kenya and 205 (10.4%) Uganda (p < 0.001). Only in Uganda, subjects tested positive for RVF virus by PCR (10 subjects, 0.5%). Occupations and activities involving contact with livestock, predominated in Kenya and Uganda, whereas handling of raw meat was most common in DRC. No specific occupations or activities were significantly associated with RVF exposure in DRC while several significant factors were identified for Kenya and Uganda. Multivariate analysis across all three countries showed that being from Uganda, male, over 20 years of age, employed as butcher or crop farmer and engaging in animal-related activities, were independently associated with RVF positivity, as was contact with sheep. Despite a prevailing sense that RVF transmission does not occur in DRC, we found a seroprevalence of 1.4%, comparable to Kenya where RVF is well documented. Further research targeting high-risk human and animal populations in DRC is warranted. A One Health approach will contribute to defining the ecology of local transmission of RVF in DRC.
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.