SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Systematic review of health risk assessment in Africa's bushmeat trade: Are there any risks assessed?
Synthesis 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe bushmeat trade in tropical Africa represents a major route for zoonotic disease emergence. Yet, the extent to which health risks have been quantitatively assessed remains unclear. Therefore, our study aimed at systematically reviewing health risk assessments conducted in the African bushmeat trade, and identifying methodological patterns and research gaps. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched Web of Science and Google Scholar (to November 2024) using multilingual Boolean queries. Eligible studies included any research assessing health, zoonotic, or food-borne risks in bushmeat supply chains across Africa. Two co-authors independently cross-validated c. 23% of extracted data. Descriptive statistics and generalized linear models were used to explore publication patterns and predictors of research output. From 449 records finally identified, 129 met inclusion criteria. Ethnobiological and public health surveillance approaches dominated (41.1% each), while epidemiological studies were scarce. Most publications appeared after 2017, mainly from Cameroon, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, with epidemic occurrence significantly predicting national research output. Interviews were the most frequent method (44.8%), while pathogen detection occurred in 40.3% of studies, identifying 66 confirmed human pathogens (23 viruses, 19 bacteria, 24 parasites). More than 88% of studies did not report survey effort, and none implemented a formal quantitative health risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Quantitative health risk assessment in the African bushmeat trade remains unattainable due to scarce data on pathogen prevalence, exposure, and host-pathogen interactions. Only formal recognition and state-regulated management of the trade-incorporating molecular surveillance, host-pathogen ecological data, and supply-chain mapping within a One Health framework-will enable reliable risk quantification.
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.