Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36053779›Full record

ArticleAustralian veterinary journal2022

Ehrlichia canis rapid spread and possible enzooty in northern South Australia and distribution of its vector Rhipicephalus linnaei.

A-L Chaber, R Easther, B Cumming, R Irving, A L Keyburn, C Smart, R O'Handley, L Lignereux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australian veterinary journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. First Report ofTransboundary and emerging diseases · 2025
    Article
  2. Veterinary sciences · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Liver and spleen of hosts of Rhipicephalus linnaei exposed to synthetic (afoxolaner) and natural acaricides (esters from castor oil). A comparative clinical-morphological study.Revista brasileira de parasitologia veterinaria = Brazilian journal of veterinary parasitology : Orgao Oficial do Colegio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

A-L ChaberSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Roseworthy Campus, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
R EastherSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Roseworthy Campus, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
B CummingAnimal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC), 4/41 Sadgroves Crescent, Winnellie, Larrakia Country, Northern Territory, 0820, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7538-0410
R IrvingAnimal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC), 4/41 Sadgroves Crescent, Winnellie, Larrakia Country, Northern Territory, 0820, Australia.
A L KeyburnBioassay Research and Development Team, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness, Private Bag 24, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia.
C SmartAnimal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC), 4/41 Sadgroves Crescent, Winnellie, Larrakia Country, Northern Territory, 0820, Australia.
R O'HandleySchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Roseworthy Campus, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6046-0688
L LignereuxSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Roseworthy Campus, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent concerns have arisen in Australia regarding detections of the exotic bacterium Ehrlichia canis which has resulted in ehrlichiosis outbreaks. In Australia, it is spread by the tropical brown dog tick Rhipicephalus linnaei, formerly Rhipicephalus sanguineus sensu lato tropical lineage. Previously, the tick has been recorded in South Australia in the Coober Pedy and the Oodnadatta areas. This study, which includes historical specimens data held in historical Australian arthropod collections, along with 10 sampled remote communities, confirms the wide distribution range of this species within the State. E. canis was detected by PCR in the ticks. The percentage of dogs hosting PCR-positive ticks increased from 2.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3 to 9.7) in November-December 2020 to 62.9% (95% CI: 44.9 to 78.5) end of February 2021, initially in two then in seven Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands communities in the far northern regions of South Australia. Our results suggest a rapid spread of the pathogen. No evidence of E. canis was found in nine regional communities. The extended tropical brown dog tick distribution indicates a greater area where E. canis may occur and may require management to minimise the impacts of ehrlichiosis outbreaks. Without the implementation of effective detection and control programs, this extended distribution of R. linnaei is likely to result in the spread of the bacterium to other regions.

Indexed as

Dog DiseasesEhrlichiosisRhipicephalusRhipicephalus sanguineusAnimalsAustraliaDogsEhrlichia canisSouth AustraliaAustraliaEhrlichia canisehrlichiosisremote communitiesRhipicephalus linnaeiticks

Identifiers

PMID36053779
PMCPMC9804231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.