Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30691522›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2019

Prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma spp., Ehrlichia spp. and Dirofilaria immitis in Canadian dogs, 2008 to 2015: a repeat cross-sectional study.

Michelle Evason, Jason W Stull, David L Pearl, Andrew S Peregrine, Claire Jardine, Jesse S Buch, Zachary Lailer, Tom O'Connor, Ramaswamy Chandrashekar, J Scott Weese

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Clinical canineCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2025
    Article
  7. First molecular evidence ofOpen veterinary journal · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Molecular Detection and Characterization ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Geographical analysis of seroprevalence ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Tick-Borne Pathogens,Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Epidemiological and Clinicopathological Features ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Michelle EvasonUniversity of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, C1A 4P3, Canada. mevason@upei.ca.
Jason W StullUniversity of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, C1A 4P3, Canada.
David L PearlUniversity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Andrew S PeregrineUniversity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Claire JardineUniversity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Jesse S BuchIDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 1 IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine, 04092, USA.
Zachary LailerIDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 1 IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine, 04092, USA.
Tom O'ConnorIDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 1 IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine, 04092, USA.
Ramaswamy ChandrashekarIDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 1 IDEXX Drive, Westbrook, Maine, 04092, USA.
J Scott WeeseUniversity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVector-borne pathogens are emerging concerns in multiple regions of Canada. Determining regional prevalence of canine vector-borne pathogens and documenting change will improve clinician awareness, enable targeted prevention, enhance diagnosis and ideally reduce the risk of disease. Study objectives were to: (i) estimate the prevalence of positive canine vector-borne test results from samples submitted in Canada; (ii) assess change in prevalence over time, from baseline (2008) to 2015; and (iii) estimate the prevalence of pathogen co-infections.

methodsThis repeat cross-sectional study evaluated 753,468 test results for D. immitis antigen and B. burgdorferi, Ehrlichia canis/ewingii/muris serology, and 753,208 test results for Anaplasma phagocytophilum/platys serology using the SNAP® 4Dx®Test and SNAP 4Dx® Plus Test.

resultsBased on all submitted samples from Canada (2008-2015), the period seroprevalence of B. burgdorferi, Ehrlichia spp., Anaplasma spp. and D. immitis antigen were 2.0%, 0.5%, 0.4% and 0.2%, respectively. Over the 7 years (2008 compared to 2015) we observed a significant increase in seroprevalence for B. burgdorferi (144.4%) and Ehrlichia spp. (150%). Co-infections (positive for two or more pathogens on a single 4 pathogen test kit) were estimated at 5.4% (1162/21,612) of total positive tests.

conclusionsThe temporal rise and geographical differences in prevalence detected for these pathogens (notably B. burgdorferi) are consistent with anecdotal information on canine illness related to tick-borne pathogen exposure in multiple regions of Canada, particularly canine Lyme disease.

Indexed as

AnaplasmaAnaplasmosisAnimalsBorrelia burgdorferiCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesDirofilaria immitisDirofilariasisDog DiseasesDogsEhrlichiaEhrlichiosisLyme DiseaseSeroepidemiologic StudiesCo-infectionHeartwormLymeTick-borneVector-borne

Identifiers

PMID30691522
PMCPMC6350403

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.