ArticleThe Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research2016
Taeniasis in non-descript dogs in Ngorongoro, Tanzania: Prevalence and predisposing factors.
Article in The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Taeniid infection in dogs: a coprological and knowledge, attitude and practices study in Gondar and Bahir Dar cities, Ethiopia.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of dog owners on the transmission, control and prevention of cystic echinococcosis and other gastrointestinal parasites in dogs of Southern provinces of Mozambique.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and Molecular Identification ofVeterinary medicine international · 2024Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of Taenia hydatigena in dogs, pigs, and cattle in the Central Highlands of Vietnam.Parasitology research · 2021Article
- Prevalence of echinococcosis andVeterinary world · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of taeniasis was determined during the period January to April 2013 in a cross-sectional study of non-descript domestic dogs from the livestock-wildlife ecosystem of Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Taeniid eggs were determined by screening faecal samples using the formalin-ether sedimentation technique. Predisposing factors for dog infection were assessed in relation to demographic, husbandry and management data. Of the 205 faecal samples screened, 150 (73.2%) were positive for taeniid eggs. The prevalence of dogs harbouring taeniid eggs was 80%, 30.2% and 75.3% in the less than 1 year, 1-3 years and greater than 3 years of age groups, respectively. Age group and sex prevalence in dogs did not differ significantly (P > 0.05), although the females showed a marginally higher prevalence (73.8%) in comparison to the males (72.7%). Taeniid eggs were significantly more likely to be found in the faeces of dogs located in Waso (80.6%) and Endulen (75%) than in Malambo (63.2%, P < 0.05). The study revealed that dogs owned and raised by agro-pastoralists were at a lower risk of acquiring Taenia spp. infection (P = 0.001) than those that were raised by pastoralists. The majority of dog owners were not aware of the predisposing factors and the mode of transmission of taeniids. Dogs were frequently fed on viscera, trimmings and the heads of slaughtered animals, and they were not treated for parasitic infections. The findings of this study indicate that taeniasis is prevalent among non-descript dogs in Ngorongoro, underscoring the need for further research and active surveillance to better understand the transmission cycle of Taenia spp. in a wider geographical area in Tanzania.
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.