| Literature DB >> 35177909 |
Mekonnen Sorsa1, Gezahegne Mamo2, Hika Waktole2, Fufa Abunna2, Aboma Zewude3, Gobena Ameni4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease with economic and public health significance in developing countries that rely on livestock production including Ethiopia. This study intended to establish the seroprevalence and associated risk factors of ovine brucellosis.Entities:
Keywords: Ethiopia; South Omo; brucellosis; ovine; seroprevalence
Year: 2022 PMID: 35177909 PMCID: PMC8844937 DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S340866
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Drug Resist ISSN: 1178-6973 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1Map of the study area (South Omo zone).
Sampling Distribution Proportion and Number of Flocks Sampled in South Omo Zone, Southern Ethiopia
| District | Sheep Population | Population Proportion (Rate) | Sample Size of Each District | Total Sample Size | Number of Flocks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bena Tsemay | 141,350 | 0.2998203411 | 0.2998203411*1536 | 461 | 47 |
| Male | 91,748 | 0.1946085366 | 0.1946085366*1536 | 299 | 30 |
| Hamer | 84,186 | 0.1785496893 | 0.1785496893*1536 | 274 | 28 |
| Dassenech | 105,905 | 0.2246372354 | 0.2246372354*1536 | 345 | 35 |
| Gnangatom | 48,260 | 0.1023652611 | 0.1023652611*1536 | 157 | 16 |
Seroprevalence of Ovine Brucellosis in Five Districts of South Omo Zone, Southern Ethiopia
| Districts | Number of Tested Sheep | mRBPT Positive | 95% CI | C-ELISA Positive | 95% CI | CFT Positive | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Bena Tsemay | 461 | 19 (4.12%) | 0.45, 4.68 | 17 (3.69%) | 0.50, 2.55 | 17(3.69%) | 0.52, 3.00 |
| 2. Male | 299 | 12 (4.01%) | 0.38, 3.29 | 10 (3.34%) | 0.80, 4.20 | 10 (3.34%) | 0.75, 4.85 |
| 3. Hamer | 274 | 20 (7.30%) | 2.16, 5.04 | 18 (6.57%) | 1.05,3.45 | 13 (4.74%) | 1.78, 3.90 |
| 4. Dassenech | 345 | 40 (11.59%) | 4.24, 5.13 | 35 (10.14%) | 7.50, 12.35 | 34 (9.85%) | 8.12, 14.40 |
| 5. Gnangatom | 157 | 14 (8.91%) | 8.06, 12.20 | 12 (7.64%) | 5.40, 9.80 | 9 (5.73%) | 11.50, 17.20 |
Flock Level Seroprevalence of Ovine Brucellosis in South Omo Zone, Southern Ethiopia
| Districts | Number of Flocks Tested | CFT | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Bena Tsemay | 47 | 13 (27.66%) | 22.50, 24.05 |
| 2. Male | 30 | 2 (6.67%) | 7.65, 13.70 |
| 3. Hamer | 28 | 9 (32.14%) | 11.43, 14.42 |
| 4. Dassenech | 35 | 22 (62.86%) | 3.06, 5.45 |
| 5. Gnangatom | 16 | 16 (100%) | 15.58, 18.30 |
Abbreviations: CFT, complement fixation test; CI, confidence interval.
Association of Ovine Brucellosis with Various Risk Factors in South Omo Zone, Southern, Ethiopia
| Univariate Logistic Regression Analysis | Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Alternatives | Number of Sheep Tested | CFT | OR (95% CI) | P-value | OR (95% CI) | P-value |
| Districts | Bena Tsemay | 461 | 17(3.69%) | Reference | |||
| Male | 299 | 10 (3.34%) | 0.1 (0.25, 2.12) | 0.120 | |||
| Hamer | 274 | 13 (4.74%) | 0.6 (0.75, 3.10) | 0.060 | |||
| Dassenech | 345 | 34 (9.85%) | 3.2 (1.98, 14.58) | 0.001 | 2 (3.56, 17.50) | 0.025 | |
| Gnangatom | 157 | 9 (5.73%) | 2.6 (1.48, 5.32) | 0.002 | |||
| Sex | Male | 549 | 5 (0.91%) | Reference | |||
| Female | 987 | 78 (7.90%) | 3.5 (2.45, 17.50) | 0.000 | 3 (1.55, 6.78) | 0.000 | |
| Age | Young (<1 Year) | 390 | 10 (2.56%) | Reference | |||
| Adult (>1 Year) | 1146 | 73 (6.37%) | 2 (4.80, 29.50) | 0.003 | 1.7 (9.40,12.50) | 0.011 | |
| Flock size | Small (≤25 sheep) | 730 | 24 (3.28%) | Reference | |||
| Medium (26 to 49 sheep) | 579 | 25 (4.32%) | 1.1 (2.78, 11.34) | 0.041 | |||
| Large (≥ 50 sheep) | 227 | 34 (14.98%) | 2.50 (3.55, 11.90) | 0.001 | 1.8 (2.05,14.05) | 0.000 | |
| Production | Agropastoral | 275 | 11 (4.0%) | Reference | |||
| Pastoral | 1261 | 72 (5.71%) | 3 (1.95, 3.57) | 0.014 | 3 (1.75, 7.00) | 0.032 | |
| History of abortion | No | 410 | 8 (1.95%) | Reference | |||
| Yes | 577 | 70 (12.13%) | 4 (5.65, 34.90) | 0.000 | 4 (2.00,7.90) | 0.000 | |
| Stage of abortion | Early | 185 | 16 (8.65%) | Reference | |||
| Late | 392 | 54 (13.77%) | 1.9 (1.78, 4.92) | 0.013 | 1.2 (1.08, 2.69) | 0.022 | |
| History of RFM | No | 432 | 13 (3.00%) | Reference | 0.071 | ||
| Still birth | No | 333 | 30 (9.0%) | Reference | |||
| Yes | 654 | 71 (10.86%) | 1.3 (0.78, 19.80) | 0.089 | |||
| Body condition score | Good | 490 | 11 (2.24%) | Reference | |||
| Medium | 540 | 9 (1.67%) | 0.12 (0.35, 2.57) | 0.044 | |||
| Poor | 506 | 63 (12.45%) | 3.1 (1.25, 9.85) | 0.007 | 1.7(2.60, 11.32) | 0.005 | |
| Parity number | One | 372 | 22 (5.82%) | Reference | |||
| More than one | 615 | 56 (9.10%) | 0.5 (0.98, 3.95) | 0.130 | |||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; RFM, retained fetal membrane.