Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26473360›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2015

Animal Reservoirs of Zoonotic Tungiasis in Endemic Rural Villages of Uganda.

Francis Mutebi, Jürgen Krücken, Hermann Feldmeier, Charles Waiswa, Norbert Mencke, Elizabeth Sentongo, Georg von Samson-Himmelstjerna

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Treatment of Animal Tungiasis: What's New?Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Francis MutebiSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Resources, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Bio-security, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Jürgen KrückenInstitute for Parasitology and Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Hermann FeldmeierInstitute of Microbiology and Hygiene, Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany.
Charles WaiswaSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Resources, College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Bio-security, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Norbert MenckeBayer Animal Health, Leverkusen, Germany.
Elizabeth SentongoDepartment of Medical Microbiology, School of Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Georg von Samson-HimmelstjernaInstitute for Parasitology and Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Makerere University · UGFreie Universität Berlin · DEBayer (Germany) · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnimal tungiasis is believed to increase the prevalence and parasite burden in humans. Animal reservoirs of Tunga penetrans differ among endemic areas and their role in the epidemiology of tungiasis had never been investigated in Uganda. METHODS AND

findingsTo identify the major animal reservoirs of Tunga penetrans and their relative importance in the transmission of tungiasis in Uganda, a cross sectional study was conducted in animal rearing households in 10 endemic villages in Bugiri District. T. penetrans infections were detected in pigs, dogs, goats and a cat. The prevalences of households with tungiasis ranged from 0% to 71.4% (median 22.2) for animals and from 5 to 71.4% (median 27.8%) for humans. The prevalence of human tungiasis also varied among the population of the villages (median 7%, range 1.3-37.3%). Pig infections had the widest distribution (nine out of 10 villages) and highest prevalence (median 16.2%, range 0-64.1%). Pigs also had a higher number of embedded sand fleas than all other species combined (p < 0.0001). Dog tungiasis occurred in five out of 10 villages with low prevalences (median of 2%, range 0-26.9%). Only two goats and a single cat had tungiasis. Prevalences of animal and human tungiasis correlated at both village (rho = 0.89, p = 0.0005) and household (rho = 0.4, p < 0.0001) levels. The median number of lesions in household animals correlated with the median intensity of infection in children three to eight years of age (rho = 0.47, p < 0.0001). Animal tungiasis increased the odds of occurrence of human cases in households six fold (OR = 6.1, 95% CI 3.3-11.4, p < 0.0001).

conclusionAnimal and human tungiasis were closely associated and pigs were identified as the most important animal hosts of T. penetrans. Effective tungiasis control should follow One Health principles and integrate ectoparasites control in animals.

Indexed as

Disease ReservoirsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsCatsChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDogsFamily CharacteristicsFemaleGoatsHumansInfant

Identifiers

PMID26473360
PMCPMC4608570
OpenAlexW2099796980

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.