Abstract
The success of a systematic review depends on the availability, accessibility and quality of literature related to the review question. This paper presents the literature found in four systematic reviews conducted for a selection of zoonotic hazards in four livestock value chains in Africa, as well as setting out the challenges in conducting the reviews. The protocol was designed following international standards, and addressed four questions around prevalence, risk factors, control options and impact of various hazards and populations. Searches were conducted in four online databases. Articles were screened for relevance, and quality was assessed before data extraction. Literature on zoonotic hazards was in general scarce and access to full articles was limited. Overall, 25-40% of papers were considered poor quality. The diversity of approaches and designs in the studies compromised the ability to generate summarized estimates. We found that the emphasis of veterinary research has been on livestock problems rather than public health issues, although this seems to be shifting in the last decade; we also found there are limited studies on impact and control. While increasing literature is being published around zoonoses in Africa, this is still inadequate to appropriately inform policy and guide research efforts.
Highlights
MethodsThe overall aim of the Systematic reviews (SRs) was to summarize the available literature on a selection of human health hazards associated with specific animal value chains in given low-income countries
Increasing amounts of research are generated and published every year
Including Google Scholar in the Systematic reviews (SRs) for West Africa allowed for inclusion of relevant French literature (1/3 of the overall literature found for West Africa)
Summary
The overall aim of the SRs was to summarize the available literature on a selection of human health hazards associated with specific animal value chains in given low-income countries. The protocol included a detailed step-by-step guide on the SR process that was to be adapted to the specifics of each LVC in each country (see supplementary material S1). It included a standardized template for data extraction, intended for adaptation to the specific LVC-country requirements. Biased selection of subjects is acknowledged and accounted for Limitations in data analysis are acknowledged and accounted for Methods used are scientifically sound, may not be the most appropriate methods. Biased selection of subjects not acknowledged Data analysis is not appropriate Wrong or inappropriate methods are used Methods are not clear or incomplete Reported results are incomplete and/or inaccurate Database Cattle Tanzania Pigs Uganda.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
