4.4 Review

Equine piroplasmosis: an insight into global exposure of equids from 1990 to 2019 by systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

PARASITOLOGY
Volume 147, Issue 13, Pages 1411-1424

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0031182020001407

Keywords

Apicomplexa; donkeys; equine piroplasmosis; horses; meta-analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. North West University (NWU) Post graduate student bursary
  2. Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management (NWU)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Equine piroplasmosis (EP) is a tick-borne disease of economic importance, relevant in the international movement of equids. The causative agents are at least two apicomplexan protozoan parasites Babesia caballi and Theileria equi. To date, there is no study that estimates global and regional exposure of equids to EP. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled prevalence and heterogeneity of EP using random-effects model. Six electronic databases were searched for publications on EP and assessed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 66 eligible studies published between 1990 and 2019 and representing 24 041 equids were included. The overall pooled prevalence estimates (PPEs) of B. caballi was 22.3% (95% CI 21.7-22.8), while the overall PPE for T. equi was 29.4% (95% CI 28.7-30.0). The overall pooled prevalence due to co-infection with both parasites was 11.8% (95% CI 11.32-12.32). Also, subgroup analysis according to sex, age, diagnostic technique, equid species, region and publication years showed a substantial degree of heterogeneity across studies computed for both B. caballi and T. equi infections in equids. Awareness of the current status of EP globally will alert the relevant authorities and stakeholders where necessary on the need for better preventive and control strategies against the disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available