Mapping Reported Modes of Transmission of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A (H5N1) to Humans: A Scoping Review.
Why it matters. A comprehensive scoping review mapping reported H5N1 transmission pathways to humans across 120 sources, providing structured evidence synthesis to inform public health understanding and prevention strategy development, though causal mechanisms remain unestablished.
Expert analysis
From the abstractThis scoping review identified and classified multiple reported H5N1 transmission pathways across 120 sources, with animal-to-human transmission (predominantly poultry-to-human) most frequently reported (90.8%), followed by environment-to-human (26.7%) and human-to-human (11.7%) transmission. The review maps plausible viral entry routes (mucosal, inhalation, ingestion, percutaneous) but does not establish causal mechanisms or relative likelihoods, indicating a need for mechanistic research to strengthen evidence-based prevention strategies.
- Animal-to-human transmission pathways reported in 109 of 120 sources (90.8%)
- Poultry-to-human transmission reported in 100 sources (83.3%)
- Cattle-to-human transmission reported in 9 sources (7.5%)
- Environment-to-human transmission pathways reported in 32 of 120 sources (26.7%)
- Human-to-human transmission pathways reported in 14 of 120 sources (11.7%)
Population. Evidence from observational studies and grey literature reporting H5N1 transmission to humans; 120 sources screened from CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, and grey literature up to October 29, 2025, with no language restrictions
For practice. Clinicians should recognize that H5N1 exposure occurs through multiple overlapping pathways (animal contact, environmental exposure, and limited human-to-human transmission) via multiple entry routes, informing exposure assessment and infection control counseling. The evidence synthesized here supports comprehensive prevention messaging but does not yet quantify individual pathway risk or establish causal attribution.
- Narrative synthesis only; no formal quality assessment or risk of bias evaluation of included studies reported
- Entry routes are biologically plausible but do not imply relative likelihood of transmission or causal attribution
- Specific risk factors, measures of association, and causal mechanisms for individual pathways not established
- Relative prevalence or importance of different transmission routes not quantified; heterogeneous evidence from observational studies and grey literature
Figures are quoted from the source as reported. PeerCurrent never invents numbers; where a figure is absent it is noted as not reported. Confirm against the original before acting.
Evidence assessment
A multidimensional read, graded only from the abstract, not a single opaque score.
Provenance
- Source
- EuropePMC
- Source type
- aggregator
- Content analyzed
- abstract
Evidence grading reflects the portion of the source actually analyzed. Always confirm against the original before acting.
Your read
Post your interpretation for colleagues. Every post stays anchored to this source, no empty-box updates.
Sign in to post your read of this evidence.