Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34406913›Full record

SynthesisThe veterinary quarterly2021

SARS-CoV-2 natural infection in animals: a systematic review of studies and case reports and series.

D Katterine Bonilla-Aldana, Alejandra García-Barco, S Daniela Jimenez-Diaz, Jorge Luis Bonilla-Aldana, Maria C Cardona-Trujillo, Fausto Muñoz-Lara, Lysien I Zambrano, Luis A Salas-Matta, Alfonso J Rodriguez-Morales

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The veterinary quarterly, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. SARS-CoV-2 wildlife surveillance in Ontario and Québec.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors.

D Katterine Bonilla-AldanaSemillero de Investigación en Zoonosis (SIZOO), Grupo de Investigación GISCA, Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-9412-2556
Alejandra García-BarcoGrupo Colaborativo de Investigación en Enfermedades Transmitidas por vectores, Zoonóticas y tropicales de Risaralda, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0003-0696-5519
S Daniela Jimenez-DiazSemillero de Investigación en Zoonosis (SIZOO), Grupo de Investigación GISCA, Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0001-7448-7307
Jorge Luis Bonilla-AldanaSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Universidad de la Amazonia, Florencia, Caquetá, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0003-3127-5798
Maria C Cardona-TrujilloGrupo Colaborativo de Investigación en Enfermedades Transmitidas por vectores, Zoonóticas y tropicales de Risaralda, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-8625-2086
Fausto Muñoz-LaraDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.ORCID 0000-0003-1221-0518
Lysien I ZambranoUnit of Scientific Research, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras (UNAH), Tegucigalpa, Honduras.ORCID 0000-0001-9002-5807
Luis A Salas-MattaFaculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú.ORCID 0000-0002-6028-7432
Alfonso J Rodriguez-MoralesFaculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú.ORCID 0000-0001-9773-2192

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 pandemic is essentially a zoonotic disease. In this context, early in 2020, transmission from humans to certain animals began reporting; the number of studies has grown since. To estimate the pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection in animals and to determine differences in prevalence between countries, years, animal types and diagnostic methods (RT-PCR or serological tests). A systematic literature review with meta-analysis using eight databases. Observational studies were included but analyzed separately. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for prevalence studies and case series. After the screening, 65 reports were selected for full-text assessment and included for qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 24 reports assessed SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR, combining a total of 321,785 animals, yielding a pooled prevalence of 12.3% (95% CI 11.6%-13.0%). Also, a total of 17 studies additionally assessed serological response against SARS-CoV-2, including nine by ELISA, four by PRTN, one by MIA, one by immunochromatography (rest, two studies, the method was not specified), combining a total of 5319 animals, yielding a pooled prevalence of 29.4% (95% CI 22.9%-35.9%). A considerable proportion of animals resulted infected by SARS-CoV-2, ranking minks among the highest value, followed by dogs and cats. Further studies in other animals are required to define the extent and importance of natural infection due to SARS-CoV-2. These findings have multiple implications for public human and animal health. One Health approach in this context is critical for prevention and control.

Indexed as

SARS-CoV-2AnimalsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingPrevalenceViral ZoonosesanimalsCOVID-19prevalenceSARS-CoV-2transmissionzoonotic

Identifiers

PMID34406913
PMCPMC8428274

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.