ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022
Switzerland-wide
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Seroprevalence and the Associated Risk Factors of Neospora caninum in Egyptian Dairy Cattle with Evaluation of Diagnostic Agreement Between Serum and Milk Samples.Acta parasitologica · 2025Article
- Seroprevalence and associated risk factors for Neospora caninum infection in dairy cattle in South Africa.Parasitology research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with cattle farms randomly selected and stratified according to population size, resulting in a sample of 780 female cattle. The cattle originated from 161 farms distributed over all Switzerland. The serum samples were tested for antibodies against Results: By ELISA and immunoblot, 4.2% (33/780) of cattle sera yielded positive results. At the farm level, 16.2% (26/161) of the sampled farms had at least one seropositive animal. The return rate of the valid questionnaires was 54.0%. At the animal level, odds for farm seropositivity were 3.8 times higher when rodents had been recorded by the farmer as a problem on the farm. At the farm-level, two protective factors were identified: rearing of replacement heifers and feeding of concentrated feed. Conclusion: We recorded a low seroprevalence of
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.