ArticleBMC veterinary research2024
Surveillance of tick-borne pathogens in domestic dogs from Chad, Africa.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Anaplasma platys beyond canines: a systematic review of host range, phylogenetic relatedness, and knowledge gaps in Africa.Parasites & vectors · 2026Pooled it
- Flubendazole 2.0: Designing a large field trial in dogs for a challenging setting.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Hepatozoon infections in domestic and wild Carnivora: etiology, prevalence, clinical disease, diagnosis and treatment, and redescription of Hepatozoon silvestris, H. martis, and H. ursi.Parasites & vectors · 2025Review
- High prevalence of vector-borne protozoa and bacteria in dogs from Chad determined using a targeted next-generation sequencing approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Geographic Variation in the Prevalence of Candidatus Neoehrlichia procyonis in Raccoons (Procyon lotor) in the United States and Canada.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTick-borne pathogens are understudied among domestic animals in sub-Saharan Africa but represent significant threats to the health of domestic animals and humans. Specifically, additional data are needed on tick-borne pathogens in Chad, Africa. Surveillance was conducted among domestic dogs in Chad for selected tick-borne pathogens to measure (1) the prevalence of antibodies against Anaplasma spp., Borrelia burgdorferi, and Ehrlichia spp.; (2) the prevalence of infections caused by Hepatozoon spp., Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma platys, and Babesia spp.; and (3) associations of pathogens with demographic, spatial, and temporal factors. Blood samples were collected from domestic dogs at three time points (May 2019, November 2019, June 2020) across 23 villages in southern Chad.
resultsOf the 428 dogs tested with the IDEXX SNAP 4Dx test in May 2019, 86% (n = 370, 95% CI = 83-90%) were positive for antibodies to Ehrlichia spp., 21% (n = 88, 95% CI = 17-25%) were positive for antibodies to Anaplasma spp., and 0.7% (n = 3, 95% CI = 0.1-2%) were positive for antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. Four different pathogens were detected via PCR. Hepatozoon spp. were most commonly detected (67.2-93.4%, depending on the time point of sampling), followed by E. canis (7.0-27.8%), A. platys (10.1-22.0%), and Babesia vogeli (0.4-1.9%). Dogs were coinfected with up to three pathogens at a single time point, and coinfections were most common in May 2019 compared to November 2019 and May 2020.
conclusionsOverall, this study provides new data about the epidemiology of tick-borne pathogens in domestic dogs in Chad, with potential implications for dog and human health.
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.