SynthesisEquine veterinary journal2026
Equine trypanosomiasis, a systematic review: Disease management.
Synthesis in Equine veterinary journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Equine trypanosomiasis, a systematic review: Disease management.Equine veterinary journal · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEquine trypanosomiasis is a neglected protozoal disease.
objectivesTo answer the study question: In equines what are the effects of disease management of trypanosomiasis on disease severity (individual level) and disease prevalence (population level) compared to no intervention? STUDY
designSystematic review.
methodsStudies were identified that described management of naturally occurring equine trypanosomiasis in any country following 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses' using eight international databases (1980-2022). Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. Data synthesis was descriptive.
resultsThirty studies were included (9 case reports, 5 case series, 15 cohorts, 1 randomised non-inferiority trial). Risk of bias was 'serious' (22/30), 'moderate' (7/30), 'low' (1/30). Heterogeneity was high. Disease severity (individual): Trypanosoma evansi: all evaluated trypanocides were effective in blood parasitaemia clearance (weak evidence). Clinical relapses were common (n = 60/241 equines treated; 25%) (strong evidence). Efficacy was poor once neurological signs were present (n = 12/19 equines; 63% mortality) (strong evidence). Trypanosoma equiperdum: a combination protocol could be curative before CNS invasion (weak evidence). Tsetse transmitted trypanosomiasis: Treatment of haemolymphatic disease with isometamidium or diminazene resulted in a positive clinical response (strong evidence). New/recrudescing infections were common in some regions (strong evidence). Trypanosoma vivax: treatment with high-dose diminazene had a poor clinical outcome (weak evidence). Disease prevalence (population): a multifaceted control programme was effective in reducing disease prevalence (weak evidence). Early (<2 days post-infection) treatment was more effective (weak evidence). Reported side effects were uncommon (n = 70/7888 equines; 1%) (strong evidence). Isometamidium chloride (0.5 mg/kg i.v.) can cause a shock response (13%; range 10-14; n = 14/105) (strong evidence). MAIN LIMITATIONS: Publication bias, heterogeneity, descriptive data.
conclusionsShort-term trypanocide response for haemolymphatic disease was positive but optimisation of treatment protocols is required to reduce relapse and combat neurotrypanosomiasis. Reliance on trypanocidal treatment alone is common. Side effects are rare but can be severe.
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.