SynthesisFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2022
Seroprevalence of
Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in Camelids: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Acta parasitologica · 2026Pooled it
- Seroprevalence of Neospora caninum in Camelids of the New and Old World: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Pooled it
- Seroprevalence ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Exposure toPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Seroprevalence ofVeterinary sciences · 2023Article
- Seroprevalence and risk factors analysis ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Toxoplasma gondii and Neospora caninum are closely related intracellular protozoan parasites of medical and veterinary concern by causing abortions and systemic illness. Limited or ambiguous data on the prevalence of T. gondii and N. caninum in camels triggered us to conduct this study. Methods: Camels (n = 460) recently imported from Sudan and destined mainly for human consumption, were tested for specific antibodies against these protozoans using commercially available ELISAs. From the two only quarantine stations for camels from Sudan, 368 camels were sampled between November 2015 and March 2016 in Shalateen, Red Sea governorate, and 92 samples were collected between September 2018 and March 2021 from Abu Simbel, Aswan governorate. Results & Discussion: Overall, seropositive rates in camels were 25.7%, 3.9% and 0.8% for T. gondii, N. caninum and mixed infection, respectively. However, marked differences were found between the two study sites and/or the two sampling periods: For T. gondii, a higher rate of infection was recorded in the Red Sea samples (31.5%, 116/368; odds ratio 20.7, 5.0-85.6; P<0.0001) than in those collected in Aswan (2.2%, 2/92). The opposite was found for N. caninum with a lower rate of infection in the Red Sea samples (0.82%, 3/368; odds ratio 23.7, 6.7-83.9; P<0.0001) than in the samples from Aswan (16.3%, 15/92). Additionally, our systematic review revealed that the overall published seroprevalence of T. gondii and N. caninum was 28.6% and 14.3% in camels worldwide, respectively. To the best of our knowledge, this study provides the first record of seroprevalence of both T. gondii and N. caninum in recently imported camels kept under quarantine conditions before delivery to other Egyptian cities and regions. In addition, our review provides inclusive data on the prevalence of T. gondii and N. caninum in camel globally. This knowledge provides basic data for the implementation of strategies and control measures against neosporosis and toxoplasmosis.
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.