↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review and meta-analysis of trypanosome prevalence in tsetse flies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review and meta-analysis of trypanosome prevalence in tsetse flies
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-1012-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reta D. Abdi, Getahun E. Agga, Weldegebrial G. Aregawi, Merga Bekana, Thomas Van Leeuwen, Vincent Delespaux, Luc Duchateau

Abstract

The optimisation of trypanosomosis control programs warrants a good knowledge of the main vector of animal and human trypanosomes in sub-Saharan Africa, the tsetse fly. An important aspect of the tsetse fly population is its trypanosome infection prevalence, as it determines the intensity of the transmission of the parasite by the vector. We therefore conducted a systematic review of published studies documenting trypanosome infection prevalence from field surveys or from laboratory experiments under controlled conditions. Publications were screened in the Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Using the four-stage (identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion) process in the PRISMA statement the initial screened total of 605 studies were reduced to 72 studies. The microscopic examination of dissected flies (dissection method) remains the most used method to detect trypanosomes and thus constituted the main focus of this analysis. Meta-regression was performed to identify factors responsible for high trypanosome prevalence in the vectors and a random effects meta-analysis was used to report the sensitivity of molecular and serological tests using the dissection method as gold standard. The overall pooled prevalence was 10.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.1%, 12.4%) and 31.0% (95% CI = 20.0%, 42.0%) for the field survey and laboratory experiment data respectively. The country and the year of publication were found to be significantly factors associated with the prevalence of trypanosome infection in tsetse flies. The alternative diagnostic tools applied to dissection positive samples were characterised by low sensitivity, and no information on the specificity was available at all. Both temporal and spatial variation in trypanosome infection prevalence of field collected tsetse flies exists, but further investigation on real risk factors is needed how this variation can be explained. Improving the sensitivity and determining the specificity of these alternative diagnostic tools should be a priority and will allow to estimate the prevalence of trypanosome infection in tsetse flies in high-throughput.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 19%
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 17%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 15 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 19 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,102,908
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#968
of 3,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,806
of 311,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#33
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,087 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.