Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26346451›Full record

ReviewParasitology research2015

Anaplasma marginale and Anaplasma phagocytophilum: Rickettsiales pathogens of veterinary and public health significance.

Farhan Ahmad Atif

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Parasitology research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 152 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Molecular Detection ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Farhan Ahmad AtifDepartment of Animal Sciences, University College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, 40100, Pakistan. atifvet_2000@yahoo.com.
University of Sargodha · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anaplasma marginale and Anaplasma phagocytophilum are the most important tick-borne bacteria of veterinary and public health significance in the family Anaplasmataceae. The objective of current review is to provide knowledge on ecology and epidemiology of A. phagocytophilum and compare major similarities and differences of A. marginale and A. phagocytophilum. Bovine anaplasmosis is globally distributed tick-borne disease of livestock with great economic importance in cattle industry. A. phagocytophilum, a cosmopolitan zoonotic tick transmitted pathogen of wide mammalian hosts. The infection in domestic animals is generally referred as tick-borne fever. Concurrent infections exist in ticks, domestic and wild animals in same geographic area. All age groups are susceptible, but the prevalence increases with age. Movement of susceptible domestic animals from tick free non-endemic regions to disease endemic regions is the major risk factor of bovine anaplasmosis and tick-borne fever. Recreational activities or any other high-risk tick exposure habits as well as blood transfusion are important risk factors of human granulocytic anaplasmosis. After infection, individuals remain life-long carriers. Clinical anaplasmosis is usually diagnosed upon examination of stained blood smears. Generally, detection of serum antibodies followed by molecular diagnosis is usually recommended. There are problems of sensitivity and cross-reactivity with both the Anaplasma species during serological tests. Tetracyclines are the drugs of choice for treatment and elimination of anaplasmosis in animals and humans. Universal vaccine is not available for either A. marginale or A. phagocytophilum, effective against geographically diverse strains. Major control measures for bovine anaplasmosis and tick-borne fever include rearing of tick-resistant breeds, endemic stability, breeding Anaplasma-free herds, identification of regional vectors, domestic/wild reservoirs and control, habitat modification, biological control, chemotherapy, and vaccinations (anaplasmosis and/or tick vaccination). Minimizing the tick exposure activities, identification and control of reservoirs are important control measures for human granulocytic anaplasmosis.

Indexed as

Anaplasma marginaleAnaplasma phagocytophilumAnaplasmosisAnimalsAnimals, DomesticAnimals, WildCattleCattle DiseasesDisease ReservoirsDisease VectorsEcologyEhrlichiosisHumansMammalsPublic HealthTicksAnaplasma marginaleAnaplasma phagocytophilumControlEpidemiology

Identifiers

PMID26346451
OpenAlexW1518726648

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.