ArticleFrontiers in allergy2026
Situation report: reactions to mammalian amniotic fluid and blood among veterinarians.
Article in Frontiers in allergy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reactions to animal biological fluids are poorly described in veterinary occupational health, despite exposures during obstetrical and surgical procedures. This study aimed to characterize the clinical features and risk determinants of reactions to mammalian amniotic fluid (AF) and blood in veterinarians. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to veterinarians practicing in France and Belgium. Data collected included demographics, allergic history, types of animal exposure, clinical features of reactions, time of onset of symptoms, use of protective equipment. Results: Among 317 respondents, 46% reported reactions to AF and 16% to blood. These reactions were predominantly cutaneous and often delayed, contrasting with the more frequent respiratory symptoms reported after common animal contact. Most cases were linked to bovine exposure and occurred early in obstetrical practice. A strong association was observed between the onset of parturitions practice and first symptoms. Increased number of parturitions and absence of protective measures were associated with higher risk. Conclusions: Reactions to mammalian AF and blood represent a distinct occupational entity in veterinary medicine. The symptoms could be suggestive of protein contact dermatitis. Early exposure and insufficient protection may contribute to their development, highlighting the need for preventive strategies and validated diagnostic tools.
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.