Zoonotic public health risks in farmed versus wild-caught wildlife for traditional markets for food: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alexandra Sack, Angellica Marta, Frida Sparaciari, Amber Barnes, Will Sack, Erik A Karlsson, Charifa Zemouri

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alexandra SackThe Carter Center, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Angellica MartaIndependent, London, United Kingdom.

Frida SparaciariVirology Unit, Institut Pasteur du Cambodge, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Amber BarnesDepartment of Public Health, University of North Florida, FL, USA.

Will SackHarvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Erik A KarlssonVirology Unit, Institut Pasteur du Cambodge, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Charifa ZemouriZemouri et al, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intensive farming, wildlife trade, and close human-animal contact in traditional markets for food (TMFs) are widely considered drivers of zoonotic disease emergence. However, comparative evidence assessing differences between farmed and wild-caught wildlife at the market interface remains limited. This study evaluated whether animals sourced from farmed versus wild-caught systems differ in pathogen detection as a proxy for zoonotic hazard and does not measure transmission or human infection outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and MEDLINE were systematically searched up to August 11, 2025, without language restrictions. Comparative studies reporting zoonotic pathogens in farmed versus wild-caught animals were included. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using random-effects models, with heterogeneity assessed using χ

Indexed as

Emerging infectious diseasesFarmedMeta-analysisOne HealthPathogen prevalenceSystematic reviewTraditional marketsWild-caughtWildlife tradeZoonotic risk

Identifiers

PMID42835818

DOI10.1016/j.onehlt.2026.101592

PMCPMC13635864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.