ReviewPublic health challenges2026
Q Fever in Africa: A Systematic Review of Prevalence, Zoonotic Potential and Disease Burden.
Review in Public health challenges, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Q fever, caused by Methods: The review protocol is registered in prospectively registered systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42025625366). Research questions and inclusion/exclusion criteria were developed using the condition, context and population (CoCoPop) framework. Relevant articles from 2004 to 2024 were sourced from PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct and Google Scholar. Data were extracted using the Kobo Toolbox, and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Descriptive analyses were conducted using R, and findings are presented in narrative form, with supporting tables and figures. Results: The review identified 136 articles which focused on domestic animals (66.9%), humans (33.1%), arthropods (25.0%) and wildlife (10.3%). Mean molecular prevalence varied among hosts as follows: goats (7.28% ± 8.84%), sheep (9.88% ± 11.95%) and cattle (8.20% ± 9.73%). Seroprevalence rates were higher, with camels showing the highest at 31.68% (standard deviation [SD] = 26.14). None of the studies addressed the economic burden of Q fever on human health and livestock production. Conclusion: This review highlights the prevalence of Q fever across Africa. It suggests the persistence of the disease is driven by a complex interplay among diverse host species, with livestock as the primary source of human infections. Findings emphasise the need for a One Health approach in all surveillance and for assessing the economic impacts of
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.