Cited by 198Helminth infection and controlParasitic infections in humans and animalsParasitic Infections and Diagnostics

Prevalence of Dog Intestinal Parasites and Risk Perception of Zoonotic Infection by Dog Owners in São Paulo State, Brazil

Katagiri, S., Oliveira‐Sequeira, T. C. G.·2008·Zoonoses and Public Health

Abstract

Summary: Coprological examination was used to estimate the prevalence of gastrointestinal parasites in stray and domiciled dogs from Botucatu, São Paulo State, Brazil. Risk factors for dog infection were assessed in relation to demographic, husbandry and management data. The dog owners completed a questionnaire survey on some aspects of dog parasitism such as parasite species, mechanisms of infection, awareness of zoonotic diseases and history of anthelmintic usage. Parasites were found in the faeces of 138 dogs, with an overall prevalence of 54.3%. Dogs harbouring one parasite were more common (31.4%) than those harbouring two (18.5%), three (3.2%) or four (1.2%). The following parasites and their respective frequencies were detected:Ancylostoma(37.8%),Giardia(16.9%),Toxocara canis(8.7%),Trichuris vulpis(7.1%),Dipylidium caninum(2.4%),Isospora(3.5%),Cryptosporidium(3.1%) and Sarcocystis(2.7%). Stray dogs were found more likely to be poliparasitized (P < 0.01) and presented higher prevalence of Ancylostoma,T. canis and Giardia(P < 0.01) than domiciled ones.Toxocara canis was detected more frequently in dogs with <6 months of age (P < 0.05) and no effect of sex or breed could be observed (P > 0.05). Except for Ancylostoma, that showed a significantly higher prevalence in dogs living in a multi‐dog household (P < 0.01), parasite prevalences were similar in single‐ and multi‐dog household. The answers of dog owners to the questionnaire showed that the majority does not know the species of dog intestinal parasites, the mechanisms of transmission, the risk factors for zoonotic infections, and specific prophylactic measures. The predominance of zoonotic species in dogs in the studied region, associated with the elevated degree of misinformation of the owners, indicates that the risk of zoonotic infection by canine intestinal parasite may be high, even in one of the most developed regions of Brazil.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2008.01163.x

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • Asymptomatic and symptomatic dogs present the same level of zoonotic risk.

    “Therefore, these categories present the same level of zoonotic risk, which may not be fully appreciated by pet owners [59,193-195].”
  • The high presence of zoonotic species in owned dogs of the studied region, along with the lack of information known by owners, endorses that the risk of zoonotic infection by canine intestinal nematodes may be indeed high.

    “Therefore, the high presence of zoonotic species in owned dogs of the studied region, along with the lack of information known by owners, endorse that the risk of zoonotic infection by canine intestinal nematodes may be indeed high [59].”
  • A study performed in a developed area of Brazil has demonstrated that the majority of dog owners did not know about intestinal parasites, sources of infections, possible risk factors for zoonoses and focused prophylactic measures.

    “Another study performed in a developed area of Brazil has demonstrated that the majority of dog owners did not know about intestinal parasites, sources of infections, possible risk factors for zoonoses and focused prophylactic measures.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katagiri, S., & Oliveira‐Sequeira, T. C. G.
Affiliations
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) (BR)
Venue
Zoonoses and Public Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-09-03
Volume
55
Issue
8-10
Pages
406-413
ISSN
  • 1863-1959 (ISSN-L)
  • 1863-2378
OpenAlex
W2132328975
Cited by
198
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
13.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Zoonoses and Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Acervo Digital da Universidade Estadual Paulista (Universidade Estadual Paulista) (submittedVersion)
  • UNESP Institutional Repository (São Paulo State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Helminth infection and control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Parasitic infections in humans and animals
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Parasitology › Parasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Keywords
canine intestinal parasites, zoonoses, stray dogs, dogs, Ancylostoma, Giardia, Toxocara canis, Trichuris vulpis, Dipylidium caninum, Cryptosporidium, Sarcocystis, polyparasitism, anthelmintic use, risk factors, São Paulo state
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Ancylostoma, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Anthelmintics, Brazil, Dog Diseases, Dogs, Feces, Female, Giardia, Humans, Intestinal Diseases, Parasitic, Male, Parasite Egg Count, Public Health, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Zoonoses, Prevalence, Toxocara canis

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