Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36495198›Full record

ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2023

Copromicroscopic study of gastrointestinal parasites in captive mammals at Central Zoo, Lalitpur, Nepal.

Pitambar Dhakal, Hari Prasad Sharma, Rachana Shah, Parbat Jung Thapa, Chiranjibi Prasad Pokheral

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Parasitological examination results of zoo animals in Germany between 2012 and 2022.International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Enteric parasites and associated factors in cancer patients in Nepal.Journal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pitambar DhakalCentral Department of Zoology, Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal.
Hari Prasad SharmaCentral Department of Zoology, Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0002-0708-1769
Rachana ShahNational Trust for Nature Conservation-Central Zoo, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Parbat Jung ThapaNational Trust for Nature Conservation-Central Zoo, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Chiranjibi Prasad PokheralNational Trust for Nature Conservation-Central Zoo, Lalitpur, Nepal.
National Trust for Nature Conservation · NPTribhuvan University · NP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundZoological gardens (Zoo) provide abode to various threatened animals or trafficked animals seized by the authorities, and injured and orphaned animals. Captive animals are more susceptible to infection as they are under significant stress due to diet and space which further dwindle their resistance to parasitic infections.

objectivesThis study was conducted to determine the prevalence and burden of gastrointestinal parasites in captive mammals housed at Central Zoo.

methodsFresh faecal samples from three orders of mammals including carnivora (n = 24), rodentia (n = 28) and artiodactyla (n = 35) were examined by direct smear, faecal floatation and sedimentation techniques, and the McMaster technique was applied to quantify parasite eggs per gram (EPG)/oocysts per gram (OPG) of a faecal sample.

resultsOne or more parasite taxa were detected in 19.54% of the examined samples and five types of GIPs including one protozoon (Eimeria spp.) and four helminths (Strongyloides spp., Haemonchus spp. and Trichostrongylus spp. and hookworm) were recorded. The protozoan prevalence (6.89 %) was lower than helminths (12.64%). The Eimeria spp. was the most prevalent parasite (6.89%) with the highest OPG (427.77 ± 25.45SD) in spotted deer (Axis axis), and the highest prevalence was noticed among artiodactyla (34.28%) followed by carnivora (12.5%) and rodentia (7.14%). Artiodactyla had both single infection (25.71%) and double (8.57%) infection. The percentage of single infection (16.09%) was found to be higher than double infection (3.44%) among the captive mammals. The wild boar (Sus scrofa) had the highest EPG of 383.33 ± 76.37SD (Strongyloides spp.), while the spotted deer had the lowest EPG of 216.66 ± 76.37SD (hookworm).

conclusionsDespite careful management practices, the parasitic infection may be attributed to the narrow enclosure, group housing and environmental contamination. The present finding provides baseline information on the parasitic infection in captive mammals, and can be used by zoo managers for the better life of captive animals.

Indexed as

ArtiodactylaCarnivoraDeerIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticParasitesRodent DiseasesAnimalsNepalRodentiacaptive mammalsCentral Zoocopromicroscopygastrointestinal parasites

Identifiers

PMID36495198
PMCPMC9857001
OpenAlexW4311018485

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.