Evidence Hub

Prevalence of Streptococcus suis serotype 2 isolated from pigs: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Khao Keonam, N. H. Nguyen, C. Saksangawong, P. Sringam, P. Saipan, Saijai Kongpechr, P. Sukon

Veterinary World, 2024

16 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Background and Aim: Among Streptococcus suis serotypes, S. suis serotype 2 is the most significant serotype that causes serious diseases in pigs and humans worldwide. The present study aimed to estimate the global prevalence of S. suis serotype 2 isolated from pigs, determine its trend, and explore the factors associated with this serotype. Materials and Methods: We retrieved relevant published studies from PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science. The retrieved citations were screened for possible inclusion. Relevant data were then extracted from the included studies. The random-effects model was used for all meta-analyses. A subgroup meta-analysis was used to assess the heterogeneity of the prevalence for four characteristics (continents, sampling organs, reporting unit, and pig’s health status). A cumulative meta-analysis was performed to determine the cumulative prevalence over time. Meta-regression analysis was used to determine the trend of pooled prevalence of S. suis serotype 2 over time. Results: Of 600 articles retrieved, 36 studies comprising a total sample size of 6939 isolates or samples from 16 countries of four continents were included for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of S. suis serotype 2 isolated from pigs was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7%–17.1%), with high heterogeneity among the included studies (Cochran’s Q, 431.6; p < 0.001; I2 = 91.9%; Table-1). No statistical significance was observed among subgroups of the four characteristics…

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. Reported size: 16 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