ArticleVeterinary sciences2022
Retrospective Longitudinal Survey on Canine Vector-Borne Pathogens: Trends and Challenges of 10 Years of Activities of a Veterinary Blood Bank.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Co-infections of rickettsiales in clinically healthy, Leishmania infantum seropositive and seronegative dogs: a systematic literature review and new findings from Southern Italy.Parasitology research · 2025Pooled it
- Case report: First autochthonousFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Canine Vector-Borne Diseases (CVBDs) in Liguria, North-West Italy: A Retrospective Study over an 11-Year Period (2013-2023).Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the dog population in two Italian shelters in Central Italy (Marche region) as potential blood donors.Open veterinary journal · 2024Article
- Detection of Anaplasma spp. and Ehrlichia spp. in dogs from a veterinary teaching hospital in Italy: a retrospective study 2012-2020.Veterinary research communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canine vector-borne pathogens (CVBPs) represent a challenge for veterinary transfusion medicine, since some can be transmitted by blood transfusion and are of zoonotic concern. Epidemiological data on CVBPs, obtained during 10 years of pre-donor screening (2012−2021) by a veterinary blood bank in central Italy, were used to conduct a retrospective epidemiological longitudinal survey. The results were obtained using the Immunofluorescent Antibody Test (IFAT) conducted on sera in order to assess IgG antibodies against Leishmania infantum, Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma phagocythophilum, Babesia canis, and Rickettsia conorii; the modified Knott’s test and an ELISA kit were used to detect Dirofilaria immitis and Dirofilaria repens. In total, 324 out of the 1260 canine blood donors (25.71%) tested seropositive for at least one pathogen. The highest overall positive rate was detected for L. infantum (12.22%), followed by E. canis (2.30%), A. phagocytophilum (1.19%), D. repens (0.95%), D. immitis (0.32%), and B. canis (0.16%). From 2012 to 2014, a prevalence of 20.12% was recorded for R. conorii. Mixed infections were recorded in 21 dogs. For all the CVBPs investigated, significant differences (p < 0.05) were not observed over the period studied. The results evidenced a non-negligible prevalence of CVBPs in canine donors, which were selected based on strict criteria concerning regular endo- and ectoparasite controls. The results confirmed that the blood bank could be a reliable local epidemiological observatory. The need for implemented screening is discussed.
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.