Evidence Hub

Prevalence and Genetic Diversity of Toxoplasma gondii in Foods: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Shamsi L, Mamizadeh M, Norouzi R, Heidari S, Mohammadi MR, Pouryousef A, Badri M, Asghari A et al.

Foodborne pathogens and disease, 2026

Abstract

This study aimed to quantify the global prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in foods and to evaluate its implications for food safety and public health. A comprehensive search of international databases was conducted from inception to May 17, 2025. A total of 34 eligible studies, encompassing 142 datasets from 22 countries across 5 continents, were included. Food items were categorized into eight groups: leafy vegetables, non-leafy vegetables, fruits and juices, mixed salads, raw meats, dairy products, eggs, and unspecified raw vegetables. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed via the I2 statistic. The estimated global prevalence of T. gondii in food samples was 8.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.5-10.3%). Pooled prevalence was 4.1% (95% CI: 2.6-6.2%) when using microscopic techniques, but significantly higher at 9.9% (95% CI: 7.7-12.7%) with molecular methods. The highest contamination rates were found in raw meats (11.9%) and non-leafy vegetables (11.4%), followed by unspecified raw vegetables (7.1%), leafy vegetables (6.3%), mixed salads (5.4%), fruits and juices (5.1%), and dairy products (2%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated variability in prevalence across factors such as publication year, country, continent, country development status, Human Development Index, climate zone, sample size, and diagnostic method. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings, and meta-regression showed that sample size was 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.

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