SynthesisParasites & vectors2026
Risk and protective factors for canine visceral leishmaniasis in the Americas: a systematic review update with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Parasites & vectors, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentification of risk and protective factors for canine visceral leishmaniasis (CVL) is essential to understand the epidemiology of the disease and direct prevention and control strategies. Building on a previous systematic review, this study presents new findings relating to the associations between CVL and a range of variables.
methodsThe systematic review included articles from the previous review (up to September 2011) and additional studies published thereafter regarding factors associated with CVL in the American continent. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies that analyzed associations between CVL and socioeconomic, environmental, household-level, or dog-level variables, regardless of the diagnostic method employed. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models and subgroup analyses, while the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to classify levels of evidence.
resultsOf the 111 studies included in the analysis, the vast majority were cross-sectional (87.4%), conducted in Brazil (95.5%), and employed serological diagnostic tests alone (77.5%). The variables most consistently associated with CVL, based on moderate levels of evidence, were short-haired dogs, dogs dwelling in the peridomicile or with free access to the street, and proximity of the domicile to green areas. Male dogs, large dogs, ectoparasite-infested animals, dogs in contact with horses, and living in homes with yards also had higher odds of infection, although the levels of evidence were low. Other variables associated with CVL but assigned with very low levels of evidence included the presence of chickens, cats, sand flies, and other dogs in the dog environment; previous cases of CVL in the domicile; substandard custodianship; and guardians with poor education and low income. The quality of the studies has improved since the last review, although methodological limitations were still present, in particular, the absence of control for confounders.
conclusionsThe analyses performed in this review strengthen the current knowledge of CVL and highlight the importance of further research to better understand some of the associated variables. Additional cohort and case-control studies are required, particularly those utilizing molecular diagnostics and adequate control for confounding factors. This review represents progress in understanding the determinants of CVL in the Americas and provides support for improving prevention and control strategies.
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.