Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12839769›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2003

Identification of a novel Cryptosporidium genotype in pigs.

U M Ryan, B Samarasinghe, C Read, J R Buddle, I D Robertson, R C A Thompson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Global prevalence ofParasitology · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Occurrence and Molecular Characterization ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cryptosporidium source tracking in the Potomac River watershed.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2008
    Article
  16. An Irish perspective on Cryptosporidium. Part 2.Irish veterinary journal · 2006
    Article
  17. Prevalence and identity of Cryptosporidium spp. in pig slurry.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2006
    Article
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

6 authors.

U M RyanDivision of Health Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia.
B Samarasinghe
C Read
J R Buddle
I D Robertson
R C A Thompson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over a 3-year period, a total of 646 fecal samples from pigs in 22 indoor and outdoor herds from Western Australia were screened for Cryptosporidium spp. by microscopy. Results revealed that 39 of 646 samples (6.03%) were positive for Cryptosporidium. Cryptosporidium was much more common in outdoor herds (17.2%) than in indoor herds (0.5%) and was more common in animals between the ages of 5 and 8 weeks (69.2%) than in younger animals (P < 0.0001). Molecular characterization of the positive samples at the 18S ribosomal DNA locus identified two distinct genotypes of Cryptosporidium: the previously identified pig genotype I and a novel pig genotype (pig genotype II), both of which warrant species status.

Indexed as

AnimalsBase SequenceCryptosporidiosisCryptosporidiumDNA, ProtozoanDNA, RibosomalFecesGenotypeMolecular Sequence DataParasite Egg CountPhylogenyPrevalenceRNA, Ribosomal, 18SSequence Analysis, DNASwineSwine DiseasesDNA, ProtozoanDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

PMID12839769
PMCPMC165206

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.