ArticleEcoHealth2013
The absence of zoonotic agents in invasive bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) in Belgium and The Netherlands.
Article in EcoHealth, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Systematic Review on the Role of Wildlife as Carriers and Spreaders ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Treatment of urodelans based on temperature dependent infection dynamics of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans.Scientific reports · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exotic invasive bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) are considered to exert a considerable negative impact on native amphibian communities. This can be due to competition and predation, but they are also a notorious source of the infectious diseases chytridiomycosis and ranavirosis, affecting amphibian populations globally. Little is known regarding their carriage of other microbial agents that might be transferred to humans or other animals. In this study we determined the occurrence of the amphibian pathogens Ranavirus and Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and of the zoonotic agents Coxiella burnetii, Neospora caninum, Leptospira sp., Toxoplasma gondii, Mycoplasma sp., Campylobacter sp., Salmonella sp. and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli in 164 bullfrogs from three populations in Belgium and The Netherlands. Although B. dendrobatidis was present at a high prevalence of 63%, mean infection loads were low with an average of 10.9 genomic equivalents (SD 35.5), confirming the role of bullfrogs as B. dendrobatidis carriers, but questioning their role as primary reservoirs for B. dendrobatidis transmission to native amphibian communities. All tested samples were negative for the other infectious agents examined. These results suggest a limited role of bullfrogs as carrier of these pathogens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24162797What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.