Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21489234›Full record

ReviewParasites & vectors2011

The immunopathology of canine vector-borne diseases.

Michael J Day

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Parasites & vectors, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Clinical canineCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Immunophenotypical and pathological changes in dogs experimentally infected with Ehrlichia canis.Revista brasileira de parasitologia veterinaria = Brazilian journal of veterinary parasitology : Orgao Oficial do Colegio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Detection and analysis of tick-borne infections in communal dogs of northwest Zimbabwe.Journal of the South African Veterinary Association · 2021
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Michael J DaySchool of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK. m.j.day@bristol.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The canine vector-borne infectious diseases (CVBDs) are an emerging problem in veterinary medicine and the zoonotic potential of many of these agents is a significant consideration for human health. The successful diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these infections is dependent upon firm understanding of the underlying immunopathology of the diseases in which there are unique tripartite interactions between the microorganism, the vector and the host immune system. Although significant advances have been made in the areas of molecular speciation and the epidemiology of these infections and their vectors, basic knowledge of the pathology and immunology of the diseases has lagged behind. This review summarizes recent studies of the pathology and host immune response in the major CVBDs (leishmaniosis, babesiosis, ehrlichiosis, hepatozoonosis, anaplasmosis, bartonellosis and borreliosis). The ultimate application of such immunological investigation is the development of effective vaccines. The current commercially available vaccines for canine leishmaniosis, babesiosis and borreliosis are reviewed.

Indexed as

AnimalsCommunicable Disease ControlDog DiseasesDogsGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsProtozoan Infections, AnimalTick-Borne Diseases

Identifiers

PMID21489234
PMCPMC3090743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.