2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.01.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Risk factors associated with Neospora caninum infections in cattle in Argentina

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

9
23
1
7

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
9
23
1
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Positive cases were more frequent among aborted animals (12.8%) than in animals without history of reproductive problems. This finding is in full agreement with those of Dubey (2003) and Moore et al (2009) who mentioned that aborted animals were more likely to be positive to N. caninum than those without signs of abortion. Romero-Salas et al (2010) reported that N. caninum antibodies prevalence increases with age, a matter that suggests horizontal and trans-placental transmission of the parasite.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Positive cases were more frequent among aborted animals (12.8%) than in animals without history of reproductive problems. This finding is in full agreement with those of Dubey (2003) and Moore et al (2009) who mentioned that aborted animals were more likely to be positive to N. caninum than those without signs of abortion. Romero-Salas et al (2010) reported that N. caninum antibodies prevalence increases with age, a matter that suggests horizontal and trans-placental transmission of the parasite.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The prevalence of N. caninum in infected beef cattle observed during this study was similar to previous descriptions (Moore et al 2002;Bañales et al 2006;Armengol et al 2007;Moore et al 2009), but was lower relative to other reports (Osawa et al 2002;Aguiar et al 2006). The prevalence of N. caninum in dairy and meat cattle from Paraná state (the region where this study was done) was previously described as ranging from 14.31% to 34.8% (Locatelli-Dittrich et al 2001;Ragozo et al 2003;Guimarães et al 2004;Locatelli-Dittrich et al 2008), and 26.7% (Ragozo et al 2003), respectively.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…A seroprevalence of 26% in this region was estimated from the results. This value is in agreement with a previous report 24 in which a prevalence of 25% was found for herds with history of reproductive losses in the same area. For concordance, sensitivity, and specificity calculation purposes, the 212 samples were analyzed along with the 16 samples of the experimentally infected heifers.…”
supporting
confidence: 93%