-
EClinicalMedicine Apr 2022Vision impairment (VI) can have wide ranging economic impact on individuals, households, and health systems. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and... (Review)
Review
Vision impairment (VI) can have wide ranging economic impact on individuals, households, and health systems. The aim of this systematic review was to describe and summarise the costs associated with VI and its major causes. We searched MEDLINE (16 November 2019), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment database (12 December 2019) for partial or full economic evaluation studies, published between 1 January 2000 and the search dates, reporting cost data for participants with VI due to an unspecified cause or one of the seven leading causes globally: cataract, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, corneal opacity, trachoma. The search was repeated on 20 January 2022 to identify studies published since our initial search. Included studies were quality appraised using the British Medical Journal Checklist for economic submissions adapted for cost of illness studies. Results were synthesized in a structured narrative. Of the 138 included studies, 38 reported cost estimates for VI due to an unspecified cause and 100 reported costs for one of the leading causes. These 138 studies provided 155 regional cost estimates. Fourteen studies reported global data; 103/155 (66%) regional estimates were from high-income countries. Costs were most commonly reported using a societal ( = 48) or healthcare system perspective ( = 25). Most studies included only a limited number of cost components. Large variations in methodology and reporting across studies meant cost estimates varied considerably. The average quality assessment score was 78% (range 35-100%); the most common weaknesses were the lack of sensitivity analysis and insufficient disaggregation of costs. There was substantial variation across studies in average treatment costs per patient for most conditions, including refractive error correction (range $12-$201 ppp), cataract surgery (range $54-$3654 ppp), glaucoma (range $351-$1354 ppp) and AMD (range $2209-$7524 ppp). Future cost estimates of the economic burden of VI and its major causes will be improved by the development and adoption of a reference case for eye health. This could then be used in regular studies, particularly in countries with data gaps, including low- and middle-income countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, Oceania, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.
PubMed: 35340626
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101354 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2016Active trachoma is caused by chronic infection of the conjunctiva by Chlamydia trachomatis, and is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. Infection can lead... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Active trachoma is caused by chronic infection of the conjunctiva by Chlamydia trachomatis, and is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. Infection can lead to: scarring of the tarsal conjunctiva; inversion of the eyelashes (trichiasis), so that they abrade the cornea; and corneal opacity, resulting in blindness. Trachoma is a disease of poverty, overcrowding, and poor sanitation. Active disease affects mainly children, but adults are at increased risk of scarring.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to prevent scarring trachoma by reducing the prevalence of active trachoma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to December 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).
RESULTS
At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 170 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 96 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 61 studies and the further review of 35 full publications. Of the 35 full articles evaluated, three previously included systematic reviews were updated, one systematic review and two RCTs were added at this update, and two RCTs and one further report were added the Comment sections. We performed a GRADE evaluation for nine PICO combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for seven interventions based on information about the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics, face washing (alone or plus topical tetracycline), fly control (through the provision of pit latrines, and using insecticide alone or plus antibiotics), and health education.
Topics: Chlamydia trachomatis; Health Education; Humans; Insect Control; Sanitation; Tetracycline; Trachoma
PubMed: 26860629
DOI: No ID Found -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Aug 2016Sight loss from trachoma is the end result of a scarring disease process starting in early childhood and characterised by repeated episodes of conjunctival inflammation... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sight loss from trachoma is the end result of a scarring disease process starting in early childhood and characterised by repeated episodes of conjunctival inflammation (active trachoma). Subsequently, the conjunctiva becomes scarred, causing the eyelashes to turn inwards and scratch the cornea (trichiasis), damaging the corneal surface and leading to corneal opacification and visual impairment. It is thought that this process is initiated and driven by repeated infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. We review published longitudinal studies to re-examine the disease process, its progression rates and risk factors.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
We searched PubMed for studies presenting incidence and progression data for the different stages of trachoma natural history. We only included studies reporting longitudinal data and identified 11 publications meeting this criterion. The studies were very heterogeneous in design, disease stage, duration, size and location, precluding meta-analysis. Severe conjunctival inflammation was consistently associated with incident and progressive scarring in five studies in which this was examined. One study reported an association between C. trachomatis infection and incident scarring. No studies have yet demonstrated an association between C. trachomatis infection and progressive scarring. Several studies conducted in regions with low prevalence active disease and C. trachomatis infection found evidence of on-going scarring progression.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE
Overall, there are few longitudinal studies that provide estimates of progression rates and risk factors, reflecting the challenges of conducting such studies. Our understanding of this disease process and the long-term impact of control measures is partial. Intense conjunctival inflammation was consistently associated with scarring, however, direct evidence demonstrating an association between C. trachomatis and progression is limited. This suggests that on-going chlamydial reinfection may not be mandatory for progression of established scarring, indicating that sight threatening trichiasis may continue to evolve in older people in formerly endemic populations, that will require service provision for years after active disease is controlled.
Topics: Blindness; Chlamydia trachomatis; Cicatrix; Conjunctiva; Corneal Opacity; Disease Progression; Humans; Incidence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Trachoma; Trichiasis
PubMed: 27483002
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004859 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the...
BACKGROUND
Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective), Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva, antibiotic resistance, and adverse effects (secondary objectives).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers. The date of the last search was 4 January 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people or communities with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people or communities with trachoma. We also included studies addressing different dosing strategies in the population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies where individuals with trachoma were randomised and 12 cluster-randomised studies. Any antibiotic versus control (individuals)Nine studies (1961 participants) randomised individuals with trachoma to antibiotic or control (no treatment or placebo). All of these studies enrolled children and young people with active trachoma. The antibiotics used in these studies included topical (oxy)tetracycline (5 studies), doxycycline (2 studies), and sulfonamides (4 studies). Four studies had more than two study arms. In general these studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.These studies provided low-certainty evidence that people with active trachoma treated with antibiotics experienced a reduction in active trachoma at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 1961 people; 9 RCTs; I = 73%) and 12 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; 1035 people; 4 RCTs; I = 90%). Low-certainty evidence was available for ocular infection at three months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; 297 people; 4 RCTs; I = 0%) and 12 months (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78; 129 people; 1 RCT). None of these studies assessed antimicrobial resistance. In those studies that reported harms, no serious adverse effects were reported (low-certainty evidence).Oral versus topical antibiotics (individuals)Eight studies (1583 participants) compared oral and topical antibiotics. Only one study included people older than 21 years of age. Oral antibiotics included azithromycin (5 studies), sulfonamides (2 studies), and doxycycline (1 study). Topical antibiotics included (oxy)tetracycline (6 studies), azithromycin (1 study), and sulfonamide (1 study). These studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in effect between oral and topical antibiotics on active trachoma at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 953 people; 6 RCTs; I = 63%) and 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 886 people; 5 RCTs; I = 56%). There was very low-certainty evidence for ocular infection at three or 12 months. Antimicrobial resistance was not assessed. In those studies that reported adverse effects, no serious adverse effects were reported; one study reported abdominal pain with azithromycin; one study reported a couple of cases of nausea with azithromycin; and one study reported three cases of reaction to sulfonamides (low-certainty evidence).Oral azithromycin versus control (communities)Four cluster-randomised studies compared antibiotic with no or delayed treatment. Data were available on active trachoma at 12 months from two studies but could not be pooled because of reporting differences. One study at low risk of bias found a reduced prevalence of active trachoma 12 months after a single dose of azithromycin in communities with a high prevalence of infection (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; 1247 people). The other, lower quality, study in low-prevalence communities reported similar median prevalences of infection at 12 months: 9.3% in communities treated with azithromycin and 8.2% in untreated communities. We judged this moderate-certainty evidence for a reduction in active trachoma with treatment, downgrading one level for inconsistency between the two studies. Two studies reported ocular infection at 12 months and data could be pooled. There was a reduction in ocular infection (RR 0.36, 0.31 to 0.43; 2139 people) 12 months after mass treatment with a single dose compared with no treatment (moderate-certainty evidence). There was high-certainty evidence of an increased risk of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli to azithromycin, tetracycline, and clindamycin in communities treated with azithromycin, with approximately 5-fold risk ratios at 12 months. The evidence did not support increased resistance to penicillin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. None of the studies measured resistance to C trachomatis. No serious adverse events were reported. The main adverse effect noted for azithromycin (˜10%) was abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea.Oral azithromycin versus topical tetracycline (communities)Three cluster-randomised studies compared oral azithromycin with topical tetracycline. The evidence was inconsistent for active trachoma and ocular infection at three and 12 months (low-certainty evidence) and was not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity. Antimicrobial resistance and adverse effects were not reported.Different dosing strategiesSix studies compared different strategies for dosing. There were: mass treatment at different dosing intervals; applying cessation or stopping rules to mass treatment; strategies to increase mass treatment coverage. There was no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended annual mass treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of active trachoma and ocular infection in people infected with C trachomatis, compared to no treatment/placebo, but the size of the treatment effect in individuals is uncertain. Mass antibiotic treatment with single dose oral azithromycin reduces the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection in communities. There is no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended periodicity of annual mass treatment. There is evidence of an increased risk of antibiotic resistance at 12 months in communities treated with antibiotics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlamydia trachomatis; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trachoma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31554017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001860.pub4 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2007Active trachoma is caused by chronic infection of the conjunctiva by Chlamydia trachomatis, and is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. Infection can lead... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Active trachoma is caused by chronic infection of the conjunctiva by Chlamydia trachomatis, and is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. Infection can lead to scarring of the tarsal conjunctiva, inversion of the eyelashes so that they abrade the cornea (trichiasis), and corneal opacity, leading to blindness. Trachoma is a disease of poverty, overcrowding, and poor sanitation. Active disease affects mainly children, but adults are at increased risk of scarring.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent scarring trachoma by reducing the prevalence of active trachoma? What are the effects of eye lid surgery for entropion and trichiasis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to January 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 23 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, face washing (alone or plus topical tetracycline), fly control (through the provision of pit latrines, and using insecticide), health education, and lid surgery (bilamellar tarsal rotation, or tarsal advance and rotation).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Blindness; Chlamydia trachomatis; Entropion; Eyelashes; Humans; Sanitation; Trachoma
PubMed: 19450349
DOI: No ID Found -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Apr 2022Trachoma is targeted for global elimination as a public health problem by 2030. Understanding individual, household, or community-associated factors that may lead to...
BACKGROUND
Trachoma is targeted for global elimination as a public health problem by 2030. Understanding individual, household, or community-associated factors that may lead to continued transmission or risk of recrudescence in areas where elimination has previously been achieved, is essential in reaching and maintaining trachoma elimination. We aimed to identify climatic, demographic, environmental, infrastructural, and socioeconomic factors associated in the literature with trachoma at community-level and assess the strength of their association with trachoma. Because of the potential power of geospatial analysis to delineate the variables most strongly associated with differences in trachoma prevalence, we then looked in detail at geospatial analysis methods used in previous trachoma studies.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature review using five databases: Medline, Embase, Global Health, Dissertations & Theses Global, and Web of Science, including publications from January 1950 to January 2021. The review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020191718).
RESULTS
Of 35 eligible studies, 29 included 59 different trachoma-associated factors, with eight studies also including spatial analysis methods. Six studies included spatial analysis methods only. Higher trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) prevalence was associated with areas that: had lower mean annual precipitation, lower mean annual temperatures, and lower altitudes; were rural, were less accessible, had fewer medical services, had fewer schools; and had lower access to water and sanitation. Higher trachomatous trichiasis (TT) prevalence was associated with higher aridity index and increased distance to stable nightlights. Of the 14 studies that included spatial methods, 11 used exploratory spatial data analysis methods, three used interpolation methods, and seven used spatial modelling methods.
CONCLUSION
Researchers and decision-makers should consider the inclusion and potential influence of trachoma-associated factors as part of both research activities and programmatic priorities. The use of geospatial methods in trachoma studies remains limited but offers the potential to define disease hotspots and areas of potential recrudescence to inform local, national, and global programmatic needs.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Prevalence; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Trachoma; Trichiasis
PubMed: 35395003
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010272 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2011Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1997 the World Health Organization (WHO) launched an Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1997 the World Health Organization (WHO) launched an Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness and environmental improvement).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective) and on Chlamydia trachomatis (C. trachomatis) infection of the conjunctiva (secondary objective).
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1950 to December 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2010), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (December 2010) and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (December 2010). We used the Science Citation Index to look for articles that cited the included studies. We searched the reference lists of identified articles and we contacted authors and experts for details of further relevant studies. There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 12 December 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people or communities with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people or communities with trachoma. A subdivision of particular interest was trials in which topical tetracycline or chlortetracycline and oral azithromycin were compared with each other, or in which one of these treatments was compared with placebo or no treatment, as these are the two WHO recommended antibiotics. We considered individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials separately.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted investigators for missing data. Where appropriate, the effect estimates from the individual studies (risk ratios) were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 14 trials randomised individuals with trachoma to oral antibiotic, topical antibiotic, both, or control (no treatment or placebo) and were eligible for inclusion in this review (n = 3587). Overall, the quality of the evidence provided from these trials was low. Nine of the trials compared antibiotic treatment to control. Most of the studies found a beneficial effect of treatment on active trachoma and ocular chlamydial infection at three and 12 months follow up. There was considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials, which meant that it was difficult to reliably estimate the size of the treatment effect. It is likely to be in the region of a 20% relative risk reduction. Seven of the 14 trials compared the effectiveness of oral and topical antibiotics. There was no consistent evidence as to whether oral or topical antibiotics were more effective, although one trial suggested that a single dose of oral azithromycin was significantly more effective than unsupervised use of topical tetracyclineA further eight trials assessed the effectiveness of community-based treatment. In five trials antibiotic treatment was compared to no (or delayed) treatment (57 communities), and in three trials oral antibiotic was compared to topical treatment (12 communities). The quality of the evidence provided by these trials was variable but at least one trial was considered to provide high quality evidence. There was evidence that community-based antibiotic treatment reduced the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection 12 months after single-dose treatment. There was some evidence that oral azithromycin was more effective than topical tetracycline as a community treatment. Data on adverse effects were not consistently reported however there were no reported serious adverse events associated with treatment with oral azithromycin or topical tetracycline; in one sample survey of 671 people treated with azithromycin between 10% and 15% experienced gastrointestinal adverse effects (nausea or vomiting, or both).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment reduces the risk of active trachoma and ocular chlamydial infection in people infected with C. trachomatis, but we do not know for certain the size of the treatment effect in individuals. Mass antibiotic treatment with single-dose oral azithromycin reduces the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection in communities.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azithromycin; Chlamydia trachomatis; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tetracycline; Trachoma
PubMed: 21412875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001860.pub3 -
Tropical Medicine & International... Jun 2010Trachoma is the commonest infectious cause of blindness. Recurrent episodes of infection with serovars A-C of Chlamydia trachomatis cause conjunctival inflammation in... (Review)
Review
Trachoma is the commonest infectious cause of blindness. Recurrent episodes of infection with serovars A-C of Chlamydia trachomatis cause conjunctival inflammation in children who go on to develop scarring and blindness as adults. It was estimated that in 2002 at least 1.3 million people were blind from trachoma, and currently 40 million people are thought to have active disease and 8.2 million to have trichiasis. The disease is largely found in poor, rural communities in developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. The WHO promotes trachoma control through a multifaceted approach involving surgery, mass antibiotic distribution, encouraging facial cleanliness and environmental improvements. This has been associated with significant reductions in the prevalence of active disease over the past 20 years, but there remain a large number of people with trichiasis who are at risk of blindness.
Topics: Blindness; Chlamydia trachomatis; Delivery of Health Care; Female; Humans; Hygiene; Male; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Trachoma
PubMed: 20374566
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2010.02521.x -
PloS One 2018Trachoma is endemic in several Pacific Island countries. The aims of this study were to (a) identify future trachoma mapping needs in the Pacific and (b) to examine...
INTRODUCTION
Trachoma is endemic in several Pacific Island countries. The aims of this study were to (a) identify future trachoma mapping needs in the Pacific and (b) to examine whether any temporal trends in trachoma prevalence could be ascertained from the historical literature on trachoma in the Pacific Islands.
METHODS
Human studies of trachoma and eye care in the Pacific Islands were identified from a systematic search of PubMed, EMbase, Scopus and Web of Science databases. A published quality assessment system for disease prevalence studies was modified to assess studies for quality and transparency.
RESULTS
Few general ophthalmic studies in the Pacific mention trachoma. In targeted studies of trachoma, cases have consistently been identified throughout the Pacific since the early twentieth century. The largest number of studies come from Papua New Guinea and Fiji, whereas some countries have no published data on trachoma. The majority of studies identified were published before the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma 2020 was convened, so lack the standardisation of population-based mapping which has been implemented in the past decade.
CONCLUSIONS
Population-based trachoma prevalence estimates have been recently generated in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati and Fiji. There is insufficient evidence to assess whether there has been temporal change in trachoma prevalence in these countries over the past century. Cases of trachoma have been identified in some countries (for example, Nauru and Samoa) which have no recent population-based mapping data, but may be at risk of trachoma endemcitiy. Deployment of appropriate mapping strategies is warranted to identify whether interventions are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Pacific Islands; Prevalence; Trachoma
PubMed: 30440006
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207393 -
Environmental Science & Technology Oct 2017Humans can be exposed to pathogens from poorly managed animal feces, particularly in communities where animals live in close proximity to humans. This systematic review... (Review)
Review
Humans can be exposed to pathogens from poorly managed animal feces, particularly in communities where animals live in close proximity to humans. This systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature examines the human health impacts of exposure to poorly managed animal feces transmitted via water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)-related pathways in low- and middle-income countries, where household livestock, small-scale animal operations, and free-roaming animals are common. We identify routes of contamination by animal feces, control measures to reduce human exposure, and propose research priorities for further inquiry. Exposure to animal feces has been associated with diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth infection, trachoma, environmental enteric dysfunction, and growth faltering. Few studies have evaluated control measures, but interventions include reducing cohabitation with animals, provision of animal feces scoops, controlling animal movement, creating safe child spaces, improving veterinary care, and hygiene promotion. Future research should evaluate: behaviors related to points of contact with animal feces; animal fecal contamination of food; cultural behaviors of animal fecal management; acute and chronic health risks associated with exposure to animal feces; and factors influencing concentrations and shedding rates of pathogens originating from animal feces.
Topics: Animals; Diarrhea; Feces; Humans; Hygiene; Sanitation; Soil
PubMed: 28926696
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02811