Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35668469›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2022

Seropositivity of main vector-borne pathogens in dogs across Europe.

Guadalupe Miró, Ian Wright, Helen Michael, Wade Burton, Evan Hegarty, Jaume Rodón, Jesse Buch, Nikola Pantchev, Georg von Samson-Himmelstjerna

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Veterinary sciences · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Guadalupe MiróDepartment of Animal Health, Veterinary Faculty, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. gmiro@ucm.es.
Ian WrightMount Veterinary Practice, Fleetwood, UK.
Helen MichaelIDEXX Laboratories, Inc, Westbrook, ME, USA.
Wade BurtonIDEXX Laboratories, Inc, Westbrook, ME, USA.
Evan HegartyIDEXX Laboratories, Inc, Westbrook, ME, USA.
Jaume RodónIDEXX Laboratories, Inc, Westbrook, ME, USA.
Jesse BuchIDEXX Laboratories, Inc, Westbrook, ME, USA.
Nikola PantchevIDEXX Laboratories, Inc, Westbrook, ME, USA.
Georg von Samson-HimmelstjernaInstitute for Parasitology and Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
IDEXX Laboratories (United States) · USDepartment of Animal Health · VNFreie Universität Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCanine vector-borne disease (CVBD) has been an area of increasing interest in Europe over the last few decades, and there have been changes in the prevalence and distribution of many of these diseases. Monitoring CVBD infections in Europe is often done by individual countries, but aggregated data for the European countries are helpful to understand the distribution of CVBDs.

methodsWe used an extensive retrospective database of results from point-of-care rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests on dogs across Europe to identify distribution and seropositivity in animals tested for selected CVBDs (Anaplasma spp., Ehrlichia spp., Borrelia burgdorferi, Leishmania spp., and Dirofilaria immitis) from 2016 through 2020. Geographic distribution of positive tests and relative percent positive values were mapped by the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics classification for regions with sufficient test results for reporting.

resultsA total of 404,617 samples corresponding to 1,134,648 canine results were available from dogs tested in 35 countries over the 5-year study period. Over this period the number of test results per year increased whereas test positivity decreased. Leishmania spp. had the largest increase in total test results from 25,000 results in 2016 to over 60,000 results in 2020. Test positivity for Leishmania spp. fell from 13.9% in 2016 to 9.4% in 2020. Test positivity fell for Anaplasma spp. (7.3 to 5.3%), Ehrlichia spp. (4.3 to 3.4%), and Borrelia burgdorferi (3.3 to 2.4%). Dirofilaria immitis test positivity trended down with a high of 2.7% in 2016 and low of 1.8% in 2018. Leishmania spp. test positivity was highest in endemic areas and in several non-endemic countries with low numbers of test results. Co-positivity rates were significantly higher than expected for all pathogen test positive pairs except for Ehrlichia spp. with Borrelia burgdorferi and D. immitis with Borrelia burgdorferi.

conclusionsThis study represents the largest data set on CVBD seropositivity in Europe to date. The increase in the number of test results and decreasing test positivity over the study period may reflect changes in testing behavior and increased screening of healthy animals. The Europe-wide mapping of CVBD provides expected test positivity that can help inform veterinarians' decisions on screening and improve prevention and identification of these important, sometimes zoonotic, diseases.

Indexed as

AnaplasmosisBorrelia burgdorferiDirofilaria immitisDirofilariasisDog DiseasesEhrlichiosisLyme DiseaseVector Borne DiseasesAnaplasmaAnimalsDogsEhrlichiaRetrospective StudiesSeroepidemiologic StudiesZoonosesAnaplasmaBorrelia burgdorferiDirofilaria immitisDogsEhrlichiaEuropeLeishmaniaSeropositivity

Identifiers

PMID35668469
PMCPMC9169295
OpenAlexW4281718697

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.