Evidence Hub

Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection rates in questing and host-attached ticks: a global systematic review and meta-analysis

S. Karshima, M. Ahmed, Cecilia Kogi, Paul Sambo Iliya

Acta Tropica, 2022

27 citations

Abstract

Anaplasma phagocytophilum causes a multi-organ non-specific febrile illness referred to as human granulocytic anaplasmosis. The epidemiologic risk of the pathogen is underestimated despite human encroachment into the natural habitats of ticks. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the global infection rates and distribution of A. phagocytophilum in tick vectors. We pooled data using the random-effects model, assessed individual study quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal instrument for prevalence studies and determined heterogeneity and across study bias using Cochran's Q-test and Egger's regression test respectively. A total of 126 studies from 33 countries across 4 continents reported A. phagocytophilum estimated infection rate of 4.76% (9453/174,967; 95% CI: 3.96, 5.71). Estimated IRs across sub-groups varied significantly (p <0.05) with a range of 1.95 (95% CI: 0.63, 5.86) to 7.15% (95% CI: 5.31, 9.56). Country-based IRs ranged between 0.42 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.80) in Belgium and 37.54% (95% CI: 0.72, 98.03) in Norway. The highest number of studies on A. phagocytophilum were in Europe (82/126) by continent and the USA (33/126) by country. The risk of transmitting this pathogens from ticks to animals and humans exist and therefore, we recommend the use of chemical and biological control measures as well as repellents and protective clothing by occupationally exposed individuals to curtail further transmission of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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