3.9 Review

An Overview of Fish-borne Nematodiases among Returned Travelers for Recent 25 Years-Unexpected Diseases Sometimes Far Away from the Origin

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 215-227

出版社

KOREAN SOC PARASITOLOGY, SEOUL NATL UNIV COLL MEDI
DOI: 10.3347/kjp.2018.56.3.215

关键词

Fish-borne nematode; zoonosis; human infection; public health; traveler

资金

  1. MEC/MCTI/CAPES/CNPq/FAPS
  2. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [UID/Multi/04423/2013]
  3. Cesumar (Centro Universitario Cesumar, Brasil)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Along with globalization of traveling and trading, fish-borne nematodiases seems to be increasing in number. However, apart from occasional and sporadic case reports or mini-reviews of particular diseases in particular countries, an overview of fish-borne nematodiasis among travelers have never been performed. In this review, we gathered fish-borne nematodiasis among travelers for recent 25 years by an extensive global literature survey using appropriate keywords, e.g. travelers diseases, human infection, anisakiasis, gnathostomiasis, capillariasis, sushi, sashimi, ceviche, Gnathostoma, Pseudoterranova, Anisakis, Capillaria, etc., as well as various combinations of these key words. The Internet search engines PubMed, Medline, Google and Googler Scholar were used as much as possible, and the references of every paper were checked in order to identify useful and reliable publications. The results showed unexpectedly high incidence of gnathostomiasis and low incidence of anisakidosis. The different incidence values of the infection with several fish-borne zoonotic nematode species are discussed, as well as some epidemiological aspects of the infections. The difficulties of differential diagnosis in non-endemic countries are emphasized. It is concluded that travelers must avoid risky behaviors which can lead to infection and that physicians and health authorities must advice travelers on the risks of eating behaviors during travel.

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

3.9
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