SynthesisTropical animal health and production2024
Current status of ruminant anaplasmosis in Algeria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Tropical animal health and production, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anaplasmosis is an emerging infectious disease that is being recognised all over the world, with impact on animal health.This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the rate infection of Anaplasma spp. infection in Algerian ruminants. Three databases were searched to identify eligible studies for the final systematic review and meta-analysis. The 'meta' package in the R software was used for the meta-analysis, and the random effects model was chosen to pool the data. Meta-analysis encompasses 14 research papers spanning 19 years (2004-2023), out of an initial pool of 737 articles retrieved from various databases. The study included a total of 1515 cattle, 190 sheep, and 310 goats, and the overall Anaplasma infection rate was estimated at 28% (95% CI, 17-41%). The analysis revealed varying infection rates among species, with cattle at 20%, sheep at 30%, and goats at 61%. Five classified species and two unclassified strains belonging to Anaplasma genus were identified in ruminants, which are A. marginale, A. centrale, A. bovis, A. ovis, A. phagocytophilum, A. phagocytophilum-like strains, and A. platys-like strains. Among these, A. marginale was prevalent in ten out of eleven cattle studies. The data also revealed regional variations, with Northeastern Algeria showing a higher infection rate (26%) compared to North-central Algeria (9%). In the subgroup analysis, clinically healthy cattle had a higher infection rate (28%) compared to suspected disease cattle (16%). Molecular biology screening methods yielded a significantly higher infection rate (33%) than microscopy (12%). Gender analysis suggested slightly higher infection rates among male cattle (19%) compared to females (16%). Age analysis indicated that Anaplasma infection was more common in cattle less than 12 months (14%) compared to those over 12 months (9%). This systematic review provides valuable insights, highlighting the need for continued surveillance and potential preventive strategies in different regions and among different animal populations in Algeria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38740638What 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.