Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35511816›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

A highly endemic area of Echinococcus multilocularis identified through a comparative re-assessment of prevalence in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), Alto Adige (Italy: 2019-2020).

Federica Obber, Roberto Celva, Graziana Da Rold, Karin Trevisiol, Silvia Ravagnan, Patrizia Danesi, Lucia Cenni, Chiara Rossi, Paola Bonato, Katia Capello and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Chasing intermediate hosts ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Molecular Screening ofVeterinary sciences · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Assessing Red Fox (Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  11. 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

20 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Federica ObberIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5459-7880
Roberto CelvaIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0071-0371
Graziana Da RoldIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4935-0349
Karin TrevisiolIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Silvia RavagnanIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Patrizia DanesiIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Lucia CenniConservation Genomics Research Unit, Centre for Research and Innovation, Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele All'Adige, Italy.
Chiara RossiConservation Genomics Research Unit, Centre for Research and Innovation, Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele All'Adige, Italy.
Paola BonatoIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1389-3261
Katia CapelloIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Heidi C HauffeConservation Genomics Research Unit, Centre for Research and Innovation, Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele All'Adige, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3098-8964
Alessandro MassoloEthology Unit, Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Rudi CassiniDepartment of Animal Medicine, Production and Health (MAPS), University of Padua, Legnaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5529-2854
Valentina BenvenutiDepartment of Animal Medicine, Production and Health (MAPS), University of Padua, Legnaro, Italy.
Andreas AgreiterWildlife Management Office, Province of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy.
Davide RighettiWildlife Management Office, Province of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy.
Marco IannielloMinistry of Health, Directorate General for Animal Health and Veterinary Drugs, Rome, Italy.
Debora DellamariaIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Gioia CapelliIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Carlo V CitterioIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4482-1295
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie · ITFondazione Edmund Mach · ITOspedale di Bolzano · ITUniversity of Padua · ITMinistero della Salute · ITUniversity of Pisa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surveillance of Echinococcus multilocularis at the edge of its range is hindered by fragmented distributional patterns and low prevalence in definitive hosts. Thus, tests with adequate levels of sensitivity are especially important for discriminating between infected and non-infected areas. In this study we reassessed the prevalence of E. multilocularis at the southern border of its distribution in Province of Bolzano (Alto Adige, northeastern Alps, Italy), to improve surveillance in wildlife and provide more accurate estimates of exposure risk. We compared the diagnostic test currently implemented for surveillance based on coproscopy and multiplex PCR (CMPCR) to a real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) in 235 fox faeces collected in 2019 and 2020. The performances of the two tests were estimated using a scraping technique (SFCT) applied to the small intestines of a subsample (n = 123) of the same foxes as the reference standard. True prevalence was calculated and the sample size required by each faecal test for the detection of the parasite was then estimated. True prevalence of E. multilocularis in foxes (14.3%) was markedly higher than reported in the last decade, which was never more than 5% from 2012 to 2018 in the same area. In addition, qPCR showed a much higher sensitivity (83%) compared to CMPCR (21%) and agreement with the reference standard was far higher for qPCR (0.816) than CMPCR (0.298) meaning that for the latter protocol, a smaller sample size would be required to detect the disease. Alto Adige should be considered a highly endemic area. Routine surveillance on definitive hosts at the edges of the E. multilocularis distribution should be applied to smaller geographic areas, and rapid, sensitive diagnostic tools using directly host faeces, such as qPCR, should be adopted.

Indexed as

EchinococcosisEchinococcus multilocularisAnimalsFecesFoxesPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID35511816
PMCPMC9070940
OpenAlexW4229044257

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.