ArticleParasitology research2019
Epidemiology of gastrointestinal nematodes of alpacas in Australia: I. A cross-sectional study.
Article in Parasitology research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A national survey of gastrointestinal nematodes in Australian dairy goats using faecal egg counts and deep amplicon sequencing.Current research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026Article
- Old world camels in Germany: parasitic nematode communities characterized by nemabiome analysis showed reduced anthelmintic efficacy according to the fecal egg count reduction test.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Anaemia in South American camelids - an overview of clinical and laboratory diagnostics.Veterinary research communications · 2024Review
- Current anthelmintic treatment is not always effective at controlling strongylid infections in German alpaca herds.Parasites & vectors · 2019Article
- Worm burdens and associated histopathological changes caused by gastrointestinal nematodes in alpacas from Australia.Parasitology research · 2019Article
- Epidemiology of gastrointestinal nematodes of alpacas in Australia: II. A longitudinal study.Parasitology 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study involved a national cross-sectional survey of gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) of alpacas in Australia. A total of 1545 fresh faecal samples were collected from both sexes of alpacas and processed for faecal egg counts (FEC) and molecular identification of nematodes using the multiplexed tandem PCR assay. Based on egg morphology, the overall prevalence of GINs was 66% while that for strongyles was 59%. The overall mean FEC was 276 eggs per gram (EPG) of faeces, with the highest count of 17,415 EPG. Male alpacas had a higher prevalence (68%, 334/490) as well as mean FEC (328 ± 60 EPG) of GINs than females (63%, 602/954; 227 ± 26, respectively). Weaners had the highest prevalence (80%) whereas tuis had the highest FEC (402 EPG) of nematodes. The highest prevalence (77%, 293/383) and FEC (630 EPG) of GINs were observed in the summer rainfall zone followed by the Mediterranean-type rainfall, non-seasonal rainfall and winter rainfall zones. The characterisation of nematode DNA isolated from faeces revealed the occurrence of seven different GINs, including Camelostrongylus mentulatus, Cooperia spp., Haemonchus spp., Oesophagostomum spp., Ostertagia ostertagi, Teladorsagia circumcincta and Trichostrongylus spp. Besides, Nematodirus spp. and Trichuris spp. were also found during FECs. The prevalence of Haemonchus spp. was highest in the summer rainfall zone while that of C. mentulatus was highest in the Mediterranean-type rainfall, non-seasonal rainfall and winter rainfall zones. The findings of this study revealed that alpacas harbour many of the same nematodes as sheep and cattle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30719533What 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.