ArticleParasites & vectors2026
Seroprevalence of Dirofilaria immitis in traveling dogs: implications for transboundary pathogen movement.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDirofilaria spp. are parasitic filarial nematodes endemic worldwide that infect dogs but are also zoonotic. Traveling dogs may serve as carriers of zoonotic parasites, including Dirofilaria immitis, introducing them to new regions. However, the risks of importation from endemic areas are unknown.
methodsTo study seroprevalence in travelling dogs, we first established the signal-to-positive (S/P) cutoffs for the DiroCHEK
resultsWe tested 649 serum pools, of which 50 heat-treated pools and 11 non-heat-treated pools tested positive spectrophotometrically. Of these 61 positive pools, 7 tested positive in non-heat treated and heat-treated conditions, resulting in 54 unique pools. During re-testing of individual dogs from the positive pools, 31 pools contained dogs infected with D. immitis, while 23 pools had no positive individuals identified, indicating the presence of cross-reactive nematodes or antigen-antibody complexes. The prevalence of D. immitis and cross-reactive nematodes based on pooled testing was 0-5.32%. Due to the unavailability of specific serological tests for cross-reactive nematodes, they were not identified further. The prevalence of D. immitis based on individual testing was 0-11.1%, which was lower than the reported prevalence in their countries of origin.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that traveling dogs may carry D. immitis and cross-reactive nematodes, increasing the risk of introducing these parasites and/or novel parasite genetics to new areas. While pooled testing allows for screening populations rapidly, this methodology may underestimate true prevalence, particularly in low-prevalence regions.
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.