| Literature DB >> 34488862 |
Nigus Abebe Shumuye1,2, John Asekhaen Ohiolei1, Mebrahtu Berhe Gebremedhin3, Hong-Bin Yan1, Li Li1, Wen-Hui Li1, Nian-Zhang Zhang1, Bao-Quan Fu1, Wan-Zhong Jia4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tapeworm infections are among the tropical neglected parasitic diseases endemically occurring in Ethiopia. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at estimating the pooled prevalence and distribution of Taenia and Echinococcus infections in humans and animals from reports from Ethiopia.Entities:
Keywords: Cystic echinococcosis; Cysticercosis; Epidemiology; Ethiopia; Risk factors; Taeniasis
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34488862 PMCID: PMC8419976 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-021-04925-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 4.047
Fig. 1Study flowchart for the prevalence and distribution of Taenia and Echinococcus infections in Ethiopia
Fig. 2Overall distributions of reports for the prevalence and distribution of Taenia and Echinococcus infections in Ethiopia. AA Addis Ababa, Oro Oromia, Tig Tigray, SNNP Southern Nation and Nationality of People, Amh Amhara, Har Harar, DD, Dire Dawa, Som Somali
Fig. 3Map of Ethiopia showing regions with study distributions/concentration a Echinococcus infection, b Taenia infection. Shapefiles for Ethiopia were retrieved from https://africaopendata.org/dataset/ethiopia-shapefiles and the program ArcMap 10.1 of ArcGIS was used to create the distribution map
Distribution of data sets by human taeniasis and CE, Ethiopia
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percent | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regions and city administrations | |||
| Tigray | 4 | 6.8 | [ |
| Oromia | 8 | 13.6 | [ |
| Amhara | 11 | 16.9 | [ |
| SNNP | 12 | 20.3 | [ |
| Addis Ababa | 16 | 30.5 | [ |
| Non-specified by region + immigrants | 7 | 12.1 | [ |
| Sex of study participants | |||
| Female | 12 | 20.3 | [ |
| Male | 4 | 6.8 | [ |
| Both female and male | 42 | 71.2 | [ |
| Not reported | 1 | 1.7 | [ |
| Study report | |||
| Case report | 23 | 39 | [ |
| Retrospective study | 11 | 18.6 | [ |
| Active hospital/clinic data (on spot) | 24 | 40.7 | [ |
| Not indicated | 1 | 1.7 | [ |
| Diagnostic method used | |||
| Parasitology/faecal examination | 34 | 57.6 | [ |
| Imaging (ultrasound, CT, x-ray) | 18 | 30.5 | [ |
| Surgery | 7 | 11.9 | [ |
| Disease category (based on the parasite) | |||
| Taeniasis | 35 | 59.3 | [ |
| CE | 24 | 40.7 | [ |
Molecular studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, Ethiopia
| Region reported | Host (no. of sampled animals) | Source of sample | Result/molecular identified spp/genotype | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oro, DD, Som, AA | Cattle (41) | Cysticerci | Unidentified (7.3%) | [ |
| Som, Oro, AA | Sheep (11) Cattle (16) Camel (16) | [ | ||
| AA, Oro and Tigray | Cattle and sheep | [ | ||
| Har, DD, Oro | Cattle (891) Sheep (95) Goat (95) Camel (25) | [ | ||
| Oromia | Cattle Goat Camel Pigs | [ | ||
| SNNP | Human (1) | [ | ||
| Ethiopia | Spotted hyena (11) | Demonstrate | [ |
Distribution of data sets by animal final hosts’ taeniasis and CE, Ethiopia
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Region | |||
| Tigray | 2 | 16.67 | [ |
| Oromia | 3 | 25 | [ |
| Amhara | 3 | 25 | [ |
| SNNP | 2 | 16.67 | [ |
| Oromia + Tigray | 1 | 8.33 | [ |
| Non-specific | 1 | 8.33 | [ |
| Study animal | |||
| Dog | 9 | 75 | [ |
| Wolf | 2 | 16.67 | [ |
| Hyena | 1 | 8.33 | [ |
| Sex of study animals | |||
| Both | 5 | 41.67 | [ |
| Unidentified | 7 | 58.33 | [ |
| Diagnostic methoda | |||
| Parasitological (faeces) | 3 | 23.07 | [ |
| Parasitological (postmortem) | 8 | 61.54 | [ |
| Molecular | 1 | 7.69 | [ |
| Molecular + parasitological | 1 | 7.69 | [ |
| Parasite typea | |||
| Adult | 6 | 35.3 | [ |
| | 2 | 11.8 | [ |
| | 2 | 11.8 | [ |
| | 1 | 5.9 | [ |
| Unidentified | 6 | 35.3 | [ |
aA single paper reports different diagnostic methods and parasite types
Overall pooled prevalence of Taenia and Echinococcus infections in intermediate and final hosts, Ethiopia
| Characteristics | Number of dataset | Pooled effect | Heterogeneity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | Infected | Prevalence (%) | 95% CI | Cochran’s | ||||
| CE | 111 | 96,940 | 17,971 | 22 | 18–26 | 24,420.65 | 100 | 0.000 |
| Cattle | 64 | 52,081 | 14,248 | 25.5 | 22.2–28.9 | 4829.374 | 98.695 | 0.000 |
| Sheep | 24 | 15,585 | 2209 | 18.8 | 13.0–25.4 | 1908.651 | 98.795 | 0.000 |
| Goat | 19 | 26,842 | 864 | 13.2 | 6.3–21.9 | 2949.349 | 99.390 | 0.000 |
| Camel | 2 | 1191 | 618 | 47.7 | 20.4–75.7 | 83.501 | 98.802 | 0.000 |
| Pig | 1 | 251 | 25 | 9.96 | 6.55–14.35 | – | – | – |
| Human | 1 | 990 | 7 | 0.7 | 0.02–1.2 | – | – | – |
| Echinococcosis | ||||||||
| Dog | 7 | 152 | 49 | 33 | 20–48 | 17.24 | 65 | 0.001 |
| Taeniasis | 32 | 10,504 | 350 | 3 | 2–4 | 279.07 | 89 | 0.000 |
| Human | 25 | 9462 | 319 | 3.0 | 2.1–4.0 | 159.229 | 84.927 | 0.000 |
| Cattle | 1 | 257 | 1 | 0.4 | 0.01–2.15 | – | – | – |
| Sheep | 2 | 347 | 9 | 3.0 | 0.00–17.5 | 23.472 | 95.740 | 0.000 |
| Goat | 2 | 336 | 9 | 3.1 | 0.00–17.7 | 23.225 | 95.694 | 0.000 |
| Wolf | 2 | 102 | 12 | 51.3 | 0.00–100 | 43.568 | 97.705 | 0.000 |
| Cattle | 53 | 111,084 | 6435 | 7 | 5–9 | 4458 | 99 | 0.000 |
| 30 | 10,561 | 3764 | 38 | 29–47 | 2622.37 | 99 | 0.000 | |
| Sheep | 15 | 5238 | 1816 | 38.9 | 25.6–53.0 | 1464.290 | 99.044 | 0.000 |
| Goat | 15 | 5323 | 1948 | 36.1 | 24.6–48.4 | 1151.815 | 98.785 | 0.000 |
| 14 | 3753 | 443 | 14 | 9–20 | 328.44 | 96 | 0.000 | |
| Sheep | 7 | 1933 | 244 | 14.6 | 6.8–24.6 | 176.303 | 96.597 | 0.000 |
| Goat | 7 | 1820 | 199 | 12.6 | 5.7–21.5 | 149.389 | 95.984 | 0.000 |
| 7 | 2541 | 151 | 5 | 2–10 | 110.26 | 95 | 0.000 | |
| Sheep | 4 | 1373 | 84 | 5.9 | 1.5–12.5 | 53.149 | 94.356 | 0.000 |
| Goat | 3 | 1168 | 67 | 4.8 | 0.00–12.4 | 56.501 | 96.460 | 0.000 |
Fig. 4Overall prevalence evidenced by forest plot: a dog echinococcosis; b taeniasis. Prev prevalence, CI confidence intervals; *same study
Fig. 5Overall prevalence of Taenia hydatigena evidenced by forest plot. Prev prevalence, CI confidence interval; *same study
Fig. 6Overall prevalence evidenced by forest plot: a Taenia ovis; b Taenia multiceps. Prev prevalence, CI confidence interval; *same study
Fig. 7Overall prevalence of Taenia saginata (Cysticercus bovis) evidenced by forest plot. Prev prevalence, CI confidence interval; *same study