Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31653234›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

The prevalence of Coxiella burnetii in ticks and animals in Slovenia.

Nataša Knap, Diana Žele, Urška Glinšek Biškup, Tatjana Avšič-Županc, Gorazd Vengušt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Prevalence ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Epidemiology of ZoonoticMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Genomic detection ofVeterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Phylogenetic Studies ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. High Prevalence and New Genotype ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nataša KnapFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Ljubljana, Zaloska 4, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Diana ŽeleVeterinary Faculty, Institute for Pathology, Wild Animals, Fishes and Bees, University of Ljubljana, Gerbiceva 60, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. diana.zele@vf.uni-lj.si.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9837-7732
Urška Glinšek BiškupFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Ljubljana, Zaloska 4, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Tatjana Avšič-ŽupancFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Ljubljana, Zaloska 4, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Gorazd VenguštVeterinary Faculty, Institute for Pathology, Wild Animals, Fishes and Bees, University of Ljubljana, Gerbiceva 60, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

Ministry of Agriculture of Slovenia Target Research Project No. V4-0477
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe obligate intracellular bacterium Coxiella burnetii causes globally distributed zoonotic Q fever. Ruminant livestock are common reservoirs of C. burnetii. Coxiella burnetii are shed in large numbers in the waste of infected animals and are transmitted by inhalation of contaminated aerosols. This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of C. burnetii infection in domestic animals and ticks in areas of Slovenia associated with a history of Q fever outbreaks.

resultsA total of 701 ticks were collected and identified from vegetation, domestic animals and wild animals. C. burnetii DNA was detected in 17 out of 701 (2.4%) ticks. No C. burnetii DNA was found in male ticks. Ticks that tested positive in the PCR-based assay were most commonly sampled from wild deer (5.09%), followed by ticks collected from domestic animals (1.16%) and ticks collected by flagging vegetation (0.79%). Additionally, 150 animal blood samples were investigated for the presence of C. burnetii-specific antibodies and pathogen DNA. The presence of pathogen DNA was confirmed in 14 out of 150 (9.3%) blood samples, while specific antibodies were detected in sera from 60 out of 150 (40.4%) animals.

conclusionsOur results indicate that ticks, although not the primary source of the bacteria, are infected with C. burnetii and may represent a potential source of infection for humans and animals. Ticks collected from animals were most likely found to harbor C. burnetii DNA, and the infection was not lost during molting. The persistence and distribution of pathogens in cattle and sheep indicates that C. burnetii is constantly present in Slovenia.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, BacterialCattleCattle DiseasesCoxiella burnetiiDeerDNA, BacterialFemaleMaleMoltingPolymerase Chain ReactionPrevalenceQ FeverSheepSheep DiseasesSloveniaAntibodies, BacterialDNA, BacterialCoxiella burnetiiDomestic and wild ungulatesReal-time PCRSeroprevalenceSloveniaTicks

Identifiers

PMID31653234
PMCPMC6815026
OpenAlexW2981361819

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.