3.8 Review

Status of Anaplasma spp. infection in domestic ruminants from Iran: A systematic review with meta-analysis

期刊

PARASITE EPIDEMIOLOGY AND CONTROL
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.parepi.2020.e00173

关键词

Anaplasma spp.; Domestic ruminants; Systematic review; Iran

资金

  1. Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences [1219]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anaplasma species are tick-borne pathogens that are obligatory intracellular of ruminants and other mammalians. In this investigation, we systematically reviewed the distribution of anaplasmosis among domestic ruminants in Iran. Five and four English and Persian databases were studied, respectively, based on keywords and throughout 17 years (2001-2017). Thirty-eight articles were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Totally, 5093 cattle, 1958 sheep, and 1232 goats corresponding to prevalence of Anaplasma infection from different areas of Iran were examined. The total prevalence of Anaplasma infection was estimated to be 34% (95% CI 27%, 41%) in domestic ruminants. Based on our data, Khozestan (54%) and Khorasan Razavi (46%) provinces were the most prevalent areas in Iran and Kerman (3%) and Hamedan (1%) provinces are the lowest. The highest prevalence of Anaplasma spp. infection was belonged to A. ovis (44%) and the lowest to A. phagocytophilum (1%) with a significant difference among them (p < .001). In addition, the most common diagnostic tests were PCR (54%), microscopy (35%) and ELISA (7%) assays. The high prevalence of ovine and bovine anaplasmosis in Iran, confirms the stability situations of animal anaplasmosis in the studied regions particularly northeastern and southwestern parts of the country. Our data offer valuable and encouraging information as regards the current situation of anaplasmosis in domestic livestock in Iran, which might be useful for active and passive surveillance and preventing plans. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of World Federation of Parasitologists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据