Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22314246›Full record

ArticleParasite (Paris, France)2012

A comparison of two different techniques for the detection of blood parasite, Theileria annulata, in cattle from two districts in Khyber Pukhtoon Khwa Province (Pakistan).

R M Khattak, M Rabib, Z Khan, M Ishaq, H Hameed, A Taqddus, M Faryal, S Durranis, Q U A Gillani, R Allahyar and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Parasite (Paris, France), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Molecular epidemiology, associated risk factors, and phylogeny ofIranian journal of veterinary research · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Molecular Epidemiology ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Detection of Theileria annulata in blood samples of native cattle by PCR and smear method in Southeast of Iran.Journal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology · 2015
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

14 authors.

R M KhattakDepartment of Zoology, Kohat University of Science and Technology Kohat, Pakistan.
M Rabib
Z Khan
M Ishaq
H Hameed
A Taqddus
M Faryal
S Durranis
Q U A Gillani
R Allahyar
R S Shaikh
M A Khan
M Ali
F Iqbal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study was carried out to determine the prevalence of Theileria annulata in large ruminants from two districts, Peshawar and Kohat, in Khyber Pukhtoon Khwa (Pakistan). Blood samples were collected from 95 cattle. Data on the characteristics of animals and herds were collected through questionnaires. No significant risk factors were found associated with the spread of tropical theileriosis in the study area. Two different parasite detection techniques, PCR amplification and screening of Giemsa stained slides, were compared and it was found that PCR amplification is a more sensitive tool (33.7% parasite detection), as compared to smear scanning (5.2% parasite detection) for the detection of Theileria annulata. 32 out of 95 animals, from both districts, produced the 721-bp fragment specific for Theileria annulata.

Indexed as

AnimalsAzure StainsCattleColoring AgentsDNA, ProtozoanFemaleMalePakistanPolymerase Chain ReactionPrevalenceRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTheileria annulataTheileriasisAzure StainsColoring AgentsDNA, Protozoan

Identifiers

PMID22314246
PMCPMC3671426

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.