Evidence Hub

A systematic review and meta-analysis of Leptospira spp. infection in wildlife: Contributions to a One Health perspective

S. Esteves, Ana Carolina Monteiro Miranda Grolla, Adriana Cortez, Juliana de Paula Nhanharelli, Evelyn Moura de Lima, F. Fornazari, Luiz Gustavo Melo da Silva, M. R. D. Do Amaral et al.

One Health, 2026

54,389 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Leptospirosis is a globally distributed zoonosis maintained by a wide range of mammalian hosts, yet the contribution of wildlife to pathogen circulation from a quantitative perspective remains poorly estimated. This PROSPERO-registered systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate infection rates across wildlife taxa and document which Leptospira species, serogroups, or serovars have been detected in these hosts through direct detection of the bacterium. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science and other four databases identified studies published between 2002 and 2022 reporting direct detection of Leptospira spp. in wild animals. Eligible studies included observational investigations using molecular, culture-based, or immunohistochemical methods to detect the pathogen in biological samples. Data were extracted and synthesized using meta-analytical models to estimate infection prevalence and urinary shedding across taxa while descriptive analyses summarized the diversity of infecting species and serogroups. To avoid bias from synanthropic rodents, studies involving Rattus rattus, Rattus norvegicus, and Mus musculus were excluded from all analyses. A total of 263 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 54,389 individuals from 648 wildlife species. The pooled prevalence of infection was 14.5%, and renal shedding reached 16.6%, with substantial variation among taxa. Rodents and bats were the most frequently sampled hosts and exhibited the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 54,389 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free