Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Potential Risk Factors Associated with Human Cystic Echinococcosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Possenti, Alessia, Manzano-Román, Raúl, Sánchez-Ovejero, Carlos, Boufana, Belgees, La Torre, Giuseppe, Siles-Lucas, Mar, Casulli, Adriano·2016·PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Scientific literature on cystic echinococcosis (CE) reporting data on risk factors is limited and to the best of our knowledge, no global evaluation of human CE risk factors has to date been performed. This systematic review (SR) summarizes available data on statistically relevant potential risk factors (PRFs) associated with human CE. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Database searches identified 1,367 papers, of which thirty-seven were eligible for inclusion. Of these, eight and twenty-nine were case-control and cross-sectional studies, respectively. Among the eligible papers, twenty-one were included in the meta-analyses. Pooled odds ratio (OR) were used as a measure of effect and separately analysed for the two study designs. PRFs derived from case-control studies that were significantly associated with higher odds of outcome were "dog free to roam" (OR 5.23; 95% CI 2.45-11.14), "feeding dogs with viscera" (OR 4.69; 95% CI 3.02-7.29), "slaughter at home" (OR 4.67; 95% CI 2.02-10.78) or at "slaughterhouses" (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.15-6.3), "dog ownership" (OR 3.54; 95% CI 1.27-9.85), "living in rural areas" (OR 1.83; 95% CI 1.16-2.9) and "low income" (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.02-2.76). Statistically significant PRFs from cross-sectional studies with higher odds of outcome were "age >16 years" (OR 6.08; 95% CI 4.05-9.13), "living in rural areas" (OR 2.26; 95% CI 1.41-3.61), "being female" (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.06-1.8) and "dog ownership" (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.01-1.86). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Living in endemic rural areas, in which free roaming dogs have access to offal and being a dog-owner, seem to be among the most significant PRFs for acquiring this parasitic infection. Results of data analysed here may contribute to our understanding of the PRFs for CE and may potentially be useful in planning community interventions aimed at controlling CE in endemic areas.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005114

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 169

Metadata

Authors
Possenti, A., Manzano-Román, R., Sánchez-Ovejero, C., Boufana, B., La Torre, G., Siles-Lucas, M., & Casulli, A.
Venue
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Published
2016-11-07
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
e0005114
ISSN
  • 1935-2727 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-2735
OpenAlex
W4213133688
Cited by
169
References
3
FWCI
2.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Potential Risk Factors Associated with Human Cystic Echinococcosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005114
The paper
Possenti, A., Manzano-Román, R., Sánchez-Ovejero, C., Boufana, B., La Torre, G., Siles-Lucas, M., & Casulli, A. (2016). Potential Risk Factors Associated with Human Cystic Echinococcosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005114

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.