ArticleParasitology research2016
Detection of canine vector-borne diseases in eastern Poland by ELISA and PCR.
Article in Parasitology research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vector-borne pathogens in dogs from the Republic of Kosovo.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- High seroprevalence of selected vector-borne pathogens in dogs from Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Prevalence ofJournal of veterinary research · 2024Article
- Tick-Borne Pathogens,Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Simultaneous Exposure toPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Granulocytic anaplasmosis in captive ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) in Poland.BMC veterinary research · 2021Article
- Epidemiological and Clinicopathological Features ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Seroprevalence ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Urinary proteome of dogs with kidney injury during babesiosis.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to establish the prevalence of Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum and Borrelia burgdorferi in dogs in eastern Poland and to determine the factors associated with exposure (seroposity) or infection (PCR). Anti-A. phagocytophilum, anti-B. burgdorferi and anti-E. canis antibodies were determined in 400 dogs, using the SNAP 4Dx ® test (IDEXX Laboratories). In addition, PCRs were performed for the detection of E. canis, A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi DNA. In reference to the risk factor analysis, a regression logistic model was determined for each aetiological agent. The overall seroprevalence was highest for B. burgdorferi (11.0 %), followed by A. phagocytophilum (8.0 %) and E. canis (1.5 %). Eleven healthy dogs were found to be infected with A. phagocytophilum, as determined by PCR, while the remainder were seronegative. For B. burgdorferi, the DNA of the spirochetes was detected in the blood of 20 dogs, while the presence of anti-B. burgdorferi IgG was detected in the sera of ten of these. For E. canis, none of the dogs tested positive by PCR. Tick control was included as a protective factor for A. phagocytophilum and B. burgdorferi, while the origin (rural) was included as a risk factor for B. burgdorferi and A. phagocytophilum infection. In addition, breed (pure) was a risk factor for B. burgdorferi infection, and sex (female) was a risk factor for E. canis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.