SynthesisParasites & vectors2020
Systematic review and meta-analysis of bovine cysticercosis in Brazil: current knowledge and way forward.
Synthesis in Parasites & vectors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current status of bovine cysticercosis and human taeniosis in areas surrounding Halaba Kulito Town, Central Ethiopia Regional State, Ethiopia.Veterinary research communications · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of bovine cysticercosis and associated economic losses in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.Tropical animal health and production · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTaenia saginata taeniosis/cysticercosis has been well studied in several countries. Brazil is one of the most important beef exporting countries and has one of the highest cattle population size in the world. In this country, bovine cysticercosis (BCC) remains the most frequent reported zoonosis detected during post-mortem inspection, resulting in costs for the beef sector and public health. We performed a systematic literature review regarding data about BCC epidemiology in Brazil and meta-analyses for its prevalence in different administrative regions and the distribution over time, and based on this discussed possible control strategies.
methodsA systematic review was conducted to obtain data about BCC in Brazil using the words "bovine cysticercosis" and "Brazil" to construct the search phrase. The inclusion criteria used to select articles were: (i) published from 2000 to 2018; (ii) full text available online in Portuguese or English; and (iii) contain information at least regarding one of the following aspects of BCC in Brazil: prevalence, incidence, spatial distribution, risk-factors, economic burden and measures for control.
resultsA set of 42 articles was included, covering the prevalence of BCC in Brazil, ranging between 0.01-18.75%. Prevalence results of 40 articles were included in a meta-analysis per administrative region. The highest prevalence was found in the South (3.4%; 95% CI: 2.0-5.2%), followed by the Southeast (2.7%; 95% CI: 1.9-3.6%), Northeast (1.5%; 95% CI: 0.6-2.7%), Central-western (0.9%; 95% CI: 0.3-1.7%) and North (0.0%; 95% CI: 0.0-0.6%) region. In addition, a reduction in prevalence over time was observed in all the evaluated states except for Alagoas and Pará.
conclusionsBesides the large availability of data, a critical lack of information about BCC epidemiology remains in Brazil. Nevertheless, the available data on prevalence, high risk-areas and risk factors should contribute to a better understanding of transmission and the formulation of recommendations for control. A One Health approach will be required to reduce T. saginata taeniosis/cysticercosis prevalence and the consequent economic burden for the beef sector in Brazil, one of the most important beef exporters in the world.
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.