Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25478583›Full record

ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2014

Canine fecal contamination in a metropolitan area (Milan, north-western Italy): prevalence of intestinal parasites and evaluation of health risks.

Sergio Aurelio Zanzani, Anna Rita Di Cerbo, Alessia Libera Gazzonis, Marco Genchi, Laura Rinaldi, Vincenzo Musella, Giuseppe Cringoli, Maria Teresa Manfredi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effectiveness of Fenbendazole and Metronidazole AgainstFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Autochthonous Human and CaninePathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A Review ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Sergio Aurelio ZanzaniDepartment of Veterinary Science and Public Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20143 Milan, Italy.
Anna Rita Di CerboDepartment of Veterinary Science and Public Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20143 Milan, Italy.
Alessia Libera GazzonisDepartment of Veterinary Science and Public Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20143 Milan, Italy.
Marco GenchiDepartment of Veterinary Science and Public Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20143 Milan, Italy.
Laura RinaldiDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", 80137 Naples, Italy.
Vincenzo MusellaDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", 80137 Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe CringoliDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", 80137 Naples, Italy.
Maria Teresa ManfrediDepartment of Veterinary Science and Public Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20143 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9623-9475

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intestinal parasites of dogs represent a serious threat to human health due to their zoonotic potential. Thus, metropolitan areas presenting high concentrations of pets and urban fecal contamination on public areas are at sanitary risk. Major aim of this survey was to determine prevalence of zoonotic parasites in dog fecal samples collected from public soil of Milan (north-western Italy). Differences in parasites prevalence distribution were explored by a geographical information system- (GIS-) based approach, and risk factors (human density, sizes of green parks, and dog areas) were considered. The metropolitan area was divided into 157 rectangular subareas and sampling was performed following a 1-kilometer straight transect. A total of 463 fecal samples were analyzed using centrifugation-flotation technique and ELISA to detect Giardia and Cryptosporidium coproantigens. A widespread fecal contamination of soil was highlighted, being fecal samples found in 86.8% of the subareas considered. The overall prevalence of intestinal parasites was 16.63%. Zoonotic parasites were found, such as Trichuris vulpis (3.67%), Toxocara canis (1.72%), Strongyloides stercoralis (0.86%), Ancylostomatidae (0.43%), and Dipylidium caninum (0.43%). Giardia duodenalis was the most prevalent zoonotic protozoa (11.06%), followed by Cryptosporidium (1.10%). Faeces from subareas characterized by broad green areas showed to be particularly prone to infection.

Indexed as

AnimalsCryptosporidiumDog DiseasesDogsFecesGiardia lambliaHumansIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticItalyRisk FactorsToxocariasisZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID25478583
PMCPMC4248419

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.