Cited by 53Parasitic Infections and DiagnosticsHelminth infection and controlVector-borne infectious diseases

Prevalence of selected zoonotic and vector-borne agents in dogs and cats in Costa Rica

Scorza, Andrea V., Duncan, Colleen, Miles, Laura, Lappin, Michael R.·2011·Veterinary Parasitology

Abstract

To estimate the prevalence of enteric parasites and selected vector-borne agents of dogs and cats in San Isidro de El General, Costa Rica, fecal and serum samples were collected from animals voluntarily undergoing sterilization. Each fecal sample was examined for parasites by microscopic examination after fecal flotation and for Giardia and Cryptosporidium using an immunofluorescence assay (IFA). Giardia and Cryptosporidium IFA positive samples were genotyped after PCR amplification of specific DNA if possible. The seroprevalence rates for the vector-borne agents (Dirofilaria immitis, Borrelia burgdorferi, Ehrlichia canis, and Anaplasma phagocytophilum) were estimated based on results from a commercially available ELISA. Enteric parasites were detected in samples from 75% of the dogs; Ancylostoma caninum, Trichuris vulpis, Giardia, and Toxocara canis were detected. Of the cats, 67.5% harbored Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Ancylostoma tubaeforme, or Toxocara cati. Both Cryptosporidium spp. isolates that could be sequenced were Cryptosporidium parvum (one dog isolate and one cat isolate). Of the Giardia spp. isolates that were successfully sequenced, the 2 cat isolates were assemblage A and the 2 dog isolates were assemblage D. D. immitis antigen and E. canis antibodies were identified in 2.3% and 3.5% of the serum samples, respectively. The prevalence of enteric zoonotic parasites in San Isidro de El General in Costa Rica is high in companion animals and this information should be used to mitigate public health risks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vetpar.2011.06.025

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scorza, A. V., Duncan, C., Miles, L., & Lappin, M. R.
Affiliations
Colorado State University (US)
Corresponding author
Scorza, Andrea V.
Venue
Veterinary Parasitology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
183
Issue
1-2
Pages
178-183
ISSN
0304-4017 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1987169296
Cited by
53
References
50
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Veterinary Parasitology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Center for Companion Animal Studies at Colorado State University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Parasitology › Parasitic Infections and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Helminth infection and control
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Parasitology › Vector-borne infectious diseases
Keywords
zoonotic parasites, vector-borne diseases, dogs, cats, intestinal parasites, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Cryptosporidium parvum, Ancylostoma caninum, Toxocara canis, Toxocara cati, Trichuris vulpis, Dirofilaria immitis, Borrelia burgdorferi, Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, seroprevalence, parasite genotyping
MeSH terms
Ancylostoma, Animals, Cat Diseases, Cats, Costa Rica, Cryptosporidium, Dirofilaria immitis, Dog Diseases, Dogs, Feces, Giardia, Humans, Intestinal Diseases, Parasitic, Public Health, Toxocara, Trichuris, Zoonoses, Prevalence, Tick-Borne Diseases, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Borrelia burgdorferi, Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review