Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21739376›Full record

ArticleParasitology research2011

Diagnosis of imported canine filarial infections in Germany 2008 - 2010.

Nikola Pantchev, Manja Etzold, Arwid Daugschies, Viktor Dyachenko

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Parasitology research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Change in the Distribution Pattern ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  3. Human ocular dirofilariasis in Poland.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Journal of veterinary research · 2022
    Article
  9. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Incidence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

Nikola PantchevDivision of IDEXX Laboratories, Vet Med Labor GmbH, Ludwigsburg, Germany. nikola-pantchev@idexx.com
Manja Etzold
Arwid Daugschies
Viktor Dyachenko

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Filarial infections of dogs are attracting attention across Europe because of the risk of spread into previously non-endemic areas (e.g. Dirofilaria repens with Culicidae as vectors) and as emerging zoonotic agents. The occurrence of filarial infections in German dogs has been analysed based on 8,545 samples collected either from imported animals or following travel into endemic regions. All samples were tested by means of modified Knott's test and heartworm antigen assay within the period 2008 - 2010. Heartworm antigen was detected in 127 samples (1.49 %; 95 % CI: 1.25 - 1.77 %), but only 38 dogs also had microfilariae in their blood samples. On the other hand, 125 animals (1.46 %; 95 % CI: 1.23 - 1.74 %) were only positive in the Knott's test. For discrimination by means of PCR and sequencing a total of 73 blood samples as well as two samples of adult worms were included, which have been sent by veterinarians during 2008 - 2010. A mono-infection caused by D. repens was detected in 35 cases, while D. immitis was proven in 15 samples, with 6 of these showing a combination of D. immitis and D. repens. Imported Dipetalonema dracunculoides (transmitted by Rhipicephalus sanguineus or Hippobosca longipennis) or Acanthocheilonema reconditum (fleas and lice serve as intermediate hosts) infections were diagnosed in 24 cases and in a single sample a co-infection of A. reconditum and D. repens was evident. D. repens was the most common filarial infection imported and it was introduced into Germany from eleven European countries. Slovenia and Hungary are reported for the first time as endemic for D. repens and A. reconditum, respectively. Furthermore this study reports, to the best of our knowledge, for the first time import of D. dracunculoides from the Canary Islands, A. reconditum from Majorca, D. immitis from Corfu and a co-infection of D. repens and A. reconditum from Spain as well as mixed infections of D. repens and D. immitis from Corfu, Sardinia and Bulgaria. Co-infections with other arthropod-borne infections as well as therapeutical follow-up were also considered. Selamectin (as spot-on formulation) was not able to clear microfilaraemia in dogs infected with either D. repens, A. reconditum or D. dracunculoides, whereas a topical moxidectin/imidacloprid formulation was able to eliminate microfilariae in one dog infected with A. reconditum.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntigens, ProtozoanDog DiseasesDogsFemaleFilariasisFilarioideaGermanyMalePolymerase Chain ReactionPrevalenceRetrospective StudiesAntigens, Protozoan

Identifiers

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.