Evidence Hub

Prevalence and associated factors of schistosomiasis among domestic ruminants in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yihenew Getahun Ambaw, Simachew Getaneh Endalamew, Ambachew Motbaynor Wubaye, Simegnew Adugna Kallu

Veterinary and Animal Science, 2025

Abstract

Schistosomiasis is a significant concern for animal and public health, particularly in low-income and rural areas with limited access to clean water and healthcare services. Evidence on the national pooled prevalence and risk factors of ruminant schistosomiasis in Ethiopia is limited, underscoring the need for further research to inform effective control strategies. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in line with the PRISMA guidelines. An extensive review was conducted across five academic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science), with all searches completed between May 10, 2025, and June 1, 2025. Heterogeneity was assessed, and a random-effects model was used to determine the pooled prevalence of schistosomiasis in ruminants. The sources of variation were analyzed through subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, Begg's test, and Egger’s test. A total of 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis, revealing a pooled prevalence of schistosomiasis in ruminants of 14.4 %, 95 % CI: [11.2-17.6]. The analysis demonstrated a substantial degree of heterogeneity among studies, with I² = 98.2 %, Q=1764.5 and p < 0.001. Among the variables analyzed for heterogeneity, the species of domestic ruminant and geographical region were identified as significant risk factors. Subgroup analysis revealed that the prevalence of schistosomiasis varied by species: 15.9…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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