ArticleBMC veterinary research2020
Serological prevalence of six vector-borne pathogens in dogs presented for elective ovariohysterectomy or castration in the South central region of Texas.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low observed perioperative complication rates associated with surgical sterilization of 1,011 heartworm-infected dogs using standard, unmodified anesthesia and surgical protocols.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Bird-tick and human-tick encounters in the Rio Grande Valley (Texas, USA): ecological associations and pathogen detections.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Ehrlichia, Hepatozoon, and Babesia Coinfection Patterns Among Owned Dogs in Central Thailand.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost vector-borne pathogens cause zoonotic diseases. These zoonoses often have wild animal reservoirs that play a significant role in disease epidemiology. However, pet animals have also been implicated in transmission of zoonotic agents to humans. To exemplify, dogs are competent reservoir hosts for several zoonotic vector-borne bacteria and protozoa. Despite that vector-borne diseases can be life-threatening for both pets and humans, studies on pathogen seroprevalence are very limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the serological prevalence of six zoonotic vector-borne agents in dogs from the South Central region of Texas (US). Electronic medical records of dogs, presenting over 2014-2019 for elective ovariohysterectomy or castration at a high volume spay and neuter clinic, were reviewed for serological testing. Sera from 418 dogs were tested for the Dirofilaria immitis antigen, and antibodies to Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Anaplasma platys, Borrelia burgdorferi, Ehrlichia canis, and Ehrlichia ewingi, using a commonly available commercial test kit. Descriptive statistics were computed to characterize the respective seroprevalence rates of the dog population. The study involved 192 (46%) male and 226 (54%) female dogs.
resultsOverall, 85 (20%) dogs tested positive for at least one of the 6 pathogens investigated. The highest seroprevalence rate averaged over the 6-year period was 11.7% for D. immitis followed by 8.4% for E. canis and/or E. ewingii, 4.3% for A. phagocytophilum and/or A. platys, and 0.2% for B. burgdorferi. The co-exposure or co-infection was only detected in 3.8% of the dog population.
conclusionsTogether, opportunistic testing of dogs presenting for elective surgical procedures may provide an effective way of assessing seroprevalence and/or risk factors for common vector-borne diseases within a geographic region of concern.
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.