Intraherd correlation coefficients and design effects for bovine viral diarrhoea, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, leptospirosis and neosporosis in cow–calf system herds in North-eastern Mexico

Segura-Correa, JC; Domínguez-Díaz, D.; Avalos-Ramírez, R.; Argáez-Sosa, Jorge

doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.006

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found the intra-cluster (intra-herd) correlation coefficients (ICCs) for both diseases to be moderate. This is likely due to cattle within herds sharing a common environment (i.e., common grazing and shared water sources) and similar management practices (Segura-Correa et al 2010). With respect to villages, there was a substantial clustering of herd-level brucellosis while for Leptospira spp., the low ICC indicated lack of village-level clustering (i.e., herd-level exposure was independent of villages).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To account for the design effect (variance inflation factor) due to clustering of cattle in herds, we adjusted the initial sample size using the formula: n 1 = n (1 + ρ ( m − 1)), where n 1 is the new sample size, ρ (rho) is the intra-cluster (intra-herd) correlation coefficient (ICC), and m is the number of animals to be sampled per herd (Dohoo et al 2012). An ICC of 0.1 was used for both diseases and was informed by other studies conducted elsewhere (Segura-Correa et al 2010; Kanouté et al 2017), given the limited information on this parameter in the study area. We sampled 3 randomly selected animals per herd.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Zoonotic Pathogen Seroprevalence in Cattle in a Wildlife–Livestock Interface, Kenya

Nthiwa

Alonso²,

Odongo

et al. 2019

EcoHealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the seroprevalence of Brucella spp. and Leptospira spp. and risk factors of exposure in cattle in three zones with varying land use types and wildlife–livestock interactions. Five villages were selected purposively; two in areas with intensive livestock–wildlife interactions (zone 1), another two in areas with moderate livestock–wildlife interactions (zone 2) and one in areas where wildlife–livestock interactions are rarer (zone 3). Sera samples were collected from 1170 cattle belonging to 390 herds in all the zones and tested for antibodies against Brucella abortus and Leptospira interrogans serovar hardjo using ELISA kits. Data on putative risk factors for seropositivity of these pathogens in cattle were collected using a questionnaire. The overall apparent animal-level seroprevalence of brucellosis and leptospirosis was, respectively, 36.9% (95% CI 34.1–39.8) and 23.5% (95% CI 21.1–26.0). Brucella spp. seroprevalence was higher in zone 1 than in zones 2 and 3 (χ2 = 25.1, df = 2, P < 0.001). Zones 1 and 2 had significantly higher Leptospira spp. seroprevalence than zone 3 (χ2 = 7.0, df = 2, P = 0.029). Results of multivariable analyses identified animal sex (female) and zones (high interface area) as significant predictors (P < 0.05) of animal-level seropositivity of Brucella spp. For Leptospira spp., important predictors of animal-level seropositivity were animal sex (female), zones (moderate interface area) and herds utilizing a communal grazing reserve. The seroprevalences of Brucella spp. and Leptospira spp. in cattle were higher in areas with moderate to high wildlife–livestock interactions than those with rare interactions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10393-019-01453-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zoonotic Pathogen Seroprevalence in Cattle in a Wildlife–Livestock Interface, Kenya

Nthiwa

Alonso²,

Odongo

et al. 2019

EcoHealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can be explained by the increased likelihood of exposure to the two pathogens over time due to their endemicity [14,53]. Intra-herd correlation coefficient values are key in calculating sample sizes for multistage sampling [54]. The ICC for RVFv infection was the highest of the three pathogens.…”

Section: Plos Neglected Tropical Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serological evidence of single and mixed infections of Rift Valley fever virus, Brucella spp. and Coxiella burnetii in dromedary camels in Kenya

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Camels are increasingly becoming the livestock of choice for pastoralists reeling from effects of climate change in semi-arid and arid parts of Kenya. As the population of camels rises, better understanding of their role in the epidemiology of zoonotic diseases in Kenya is a public health priority. Rift Valley fever (RVF), brucellosis and Q fever are three of the top priority diseases in the country but the involvement of camels in the transmission dynamics of these diseases is poorly understood. We analyzed 120 camel serum samples from northern Kenya to establish seropositivity rates of the three pathogens and to characterize the infecting Brucella species using molecular assays. We found seropositivity of 24.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.5–31.8%) for Brucella, 20.8% (95% CI: 13.6–28.1%) and 14.2% (95% CI: 7.9–20.4%) for Coxiella burnetii and Rift valley fever virus respectively. We found 27.5% (95% CI: 19.5–35.5%) of the animals were seropositive for at least one pathogen and 13.3% (95% CI: 7.2–19.4%) were seropositive for at least two pathogens. B. melitensis was the only Brucella spp. detected. The high sero-positivity rates are indicative of the endemicity of these pathogens among camel populations and the possible role the species has in the epidemiology of zoonotic diseases. Considering the strong association between human infection and contact with livestock for most zoonotic infections in Kenya, there is immediate need to conduct further research to determine the role of camels in transmission of these zoonoses to other livestock species and humans. This information will be useful for designing more effective surveillance systems and intervention measures.

show abstract

“…La prevalencia promedio de estos dos estudios fue 69.5 y 69.0 %, respectivamente, observándose que ambos estudios reportaron prácticamente la misma prevalencia de DVB. Estos dos estudios, aunados a otros estudios realizados en México (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13) , suman un total de 24 entidades federativas, indicando que el virus también se encuentra ampliamente distribuido en nuestro país. Sin embargo, la literatura científica indica que, al parecer, aún existen ocho entidades federativas (Baja California Sur, Colima, Nayarit, Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Tlaxcala, Zacatecas) en las cuales se desconoce formalmente a través de artículos científicos, la prevalencia de anticuerpos contra el virus de la DVB.…”

Section: Recibido 19/08/2017unclassified

“…Cantú y Alvarado (9) Tamaulipas Aldama No se indica No se indica 34.1 Cantú y Alvarado (9) Tamaulipas González No se indica No se indica 63.8 Cantú y Alvarado (9) Tamaulipas Altamira No se indica No se indica 52.1 Cantú y Alvarado (9) Tamaulipas Promedio No se indica 500 49.0 Solorio (10) Michoacán Tarímbaro H 961 63.2 Córdova-Izquierdo et al (11) Campeche Candelaria Bt, Bi, Bt x Bi 267 12.3 Segura-Correa et al (12) Nuevo León No se indica No se indica 813 30.0 Ramos et al (13) Oaxaca San Juan Cotzocón No se indica 1031 41.0 Romero et al (17) Veracruz Norte No se indica Múltiples razas y cruzas 804 64.2 Romero et al (17) Veracruz Centro No se indica Múltiples razas y cruzas 756 57.4 Romero et al (17) Veracruz Sur No se indica Múltiples razas y cruzas 574 59.3 Romero et al (17) Promedio No se indica Múltiples razas y cruzas 3,538 60.3 Cedillo et al (18) Coahuila Torreón H 116 83.6 Escamilla et al (19) Querétaro Colón Holstein 99 70.0 Mellado (23) Coahuila Saltillo CH, HF 19 100.0 Barajas-Rojas et al (25) Veracruz Tlapacoyan H x C 865 <5.0 Meléndez et al (26) Aguascalientes No se indica H 110 32.8 Ojeda-Carrasco et al (27) Estado de México Tlalmanalco No se indica 40 40.0 Ojeda-Carrasco et al (27) Estado de México Amecameca No se indica 91 58.2 Ojeda-Carrasco et al (27) Estado de México Ayapango No se indica 47 29.8 Ojeda-Carrasco et al (27) Promedio -No se indica 178 42.7 Córdova-Izquierdo et al (28) Sureste mexicano No se indica L, CH, BB, BM, SP x C 69 87.0 Moles et al (29) Altiplano Central No se indica No se indica 603 72.3 Sánchez-Castilleja et al (30) Hidalgo No se indica H 500 48.6 Solís-Calderón et al (31) Yucatán No se indica C, H x C, SP x C 560 14.0 Varguez et al (32) Campeche Sur b No se indica No se indica 46.4 Varguez et al (32) Campeche Centro (32) Campeche Norte (32) Promedio En el municipio de Nauzontla la prevalencia disminuyó 23.1 unidades porcentuales del primero al segundo muestreo, mientras que en el de San José Acateno la prevalencia disminuyó 23.9 ...…”

Section: Recibido 19/08/2017unclassified

Prevalencia de anticuerpos contra diarrea viral bovina en vacas no vacunadas en los estados de Puebla, Tabasco y Veracruz, México

Fernández¹,

Utrera²,

Martínez³

et al. 2018

Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La prevalencia (PRE) de anticuerpos contra diarrea viral bovina (DVB) se determinó en 421 vacas de 24 ranchos ubicados en 11 municipios de los estados de Puebla, Veracruz y Tabasco, México. Adicionalmente, se evaluó la influencia de anticuerpos contra DVB sobre la tasa de gestación (TG). Antes del estudio, los hatos nunca fueron vacunados contra DVB. Se obtuvieron muestras de sangre de cada vaca dos veces, con un intervalo de 3.5 a 4.0 meses. La presencia de anticuerpos se determinó mediante la técnica de ELISA. Al primer muestreo, Puebla (51.4 %) y Tabasco (49.7 %) presentaron menor PRE (P<0.01) que Veracruz (76.2 %); sin embargo, al segundo muestreo, los tres estados presentaron diferentes (P<0.05) PRE: 31.1, 54.6 y 76.0 %, respectivamente. Al primer muestreo, la PRE varió de 25.0 a 85.0 % entre municipios, mientras que al segundo varió de 15.0 a 85.9 %. Al primer muestreo, la PRE varió de 9.1 a 95.0 % entre ranchos, mientras que al segundo varió de 5.0 a 95.0 %. La TG de las vacas sin anticuerpos contra DVB fue similar (P>0.05) a la de las vacas con anticuerpos (57.3 vs 53.5 %). En conclusión, 1) Veracruz presentó mayor PRE que Puebla y Tabasco; 2) el 100 % de los hatos presentaron anticuerpos contra DVB, lo que sugiere que el virus de la DVB está ampliamente distribuido en los tres estados; 3) existió una gran variación en la PRE entre ranchos y entre municipios, siendo ésta cercana a 100 % en varios casos; y 4) la presencia de anticuerpos contra DVB no influyó la tasa de gestación.

show abstract

Intraherd correlation coefficients and design effects for bovine viral diarrhoea, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, leptospirosis and neosporosis in cow–calf system herds in North-eastern Mexico

Cited by 13 publications

References 9 publications

Zoonotic Pathogen Seroprevalence in Cattle in a Wildlife–Livestock Interface, Kenya

Zoonotic Pathogen Seroprevalence in Cattle in a Wildlife–Livestock Interface, Kenya

Serological evidence of single and mixed infections of Rift Valley fever virus, Brucella spp. and Coxiella burnetii in dromedary camels in Kenya

Prevalencia de anticuerpos contra diarrea viral bovina en vacas no vacunadas en los estados de Puebla, Tabasco y Veracruz, México

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About