伯氏疏螺旋体暴露在郊狼:伯氏疏螺旋体水平在城市与农村环境的指标

L. Shultz, E. Fausak
{"title":"伯氏疏螺旋体暴露在郊狼:伯氏疏螺旋体水平在城市与农村环境的指标","authors":"L. Shultz, E. Fausak","doi":"10.18849/ve.v7i1.444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \nDo wild coyotes in the US that are in an urban habitat compared to a rural habitat have a higher prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi seroconversion? \n  \nClinical bottom line \nCategory of research question \nPrevalence \nThe number and type of study designs reviewed \nTwo papers, both utilising a cross-sectional study design \nStrength of evidence \nZero \nOutcomes reported \nThe relevant studies provide very limited to no evidence towards answering this PICO question. In one, while the absolute percentage of Borrelia-antibody-positive canines (including dogs in addition to coyotes) is higher in metropolitan areas, the effect was not found to be statistically significant, possibly due to their small sample sizes. In the second study, prevalence of antibodies against Borrelia was compared between different rural habitats, but no urban coyotes were tested as a comparison and thus the PICO question cannot be evaluated \nConclusion \nThere is a knowledge gap concerning the prevalence of Borrelia in coyotes and how it differs between urban and rural environments. Wild coyotes could be used as a sentinel species of Lyme disease activity and to assess potential for domestic pet and human infections, which would inform clinical differential diagnoses as well as testing and vaccination recommendations. More studies are needed before this PICO question can be answered in a confident manner \n  \nHow to apply this evidence in practice \nThe application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. \nKnowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care. \n  \n","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"9 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Borrelia burgdorferi exposure in coyotes: an indicator of B. burgdorferi levels in urban versus rural environments\",\"authors\":\"L. Shultz, E. Fausak\",\"doi\":\"10.18849/ve.v7i1.444\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PICO question \\nDo wild coyotes in the US that are in an urban habitat compared to a rural habitat have a higher prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi seroconversion? \\n  \\nClinical bottom line \\nCategory of research question \\nPrevalence \\nThe number and type of study designs reviewed \\nTwo papers, both utilising a cross-sectional study design \\nStrength of evidence \\nZero \\nOutcomes reported \\nThe relevant studies provide very limited to no evidence towards answering this PICO question. In one, while the absolute percentage of Borrelia-antibody-positive canines (including dogs in addition to coyotes) is higher in metropolitan areas, the effect was not found to be statistically significant, possibly due to their small sample sizes. In the second study, prevalence of antibodies against Borrelia was compared between different rural habitats, but no urban coyotes were tested as a comparison and thus the PICO question cannot be evaluated \\nConclusion \\nThere is a knowledge gap concerning the prevalence of Borrelia in coyotes and how it differs between urban and rural environments. Wild coyotes could be used as a sentinel species of Lyme disease activity and to assess potential for domestic pet and human infections, which would inform clinical differential diagnoses as well as testing and vaccination recommendations. More studies are needed before this PICO question can be answered in a confident manner \\n  \\nHow to apply this evidence in practice \\nThe application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. \\nKnowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care. \\n  \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":257905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veterinary Evidence\",\"volume\":\"9 4\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veterinary Evidence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i1.444\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i1.444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

PICO问题:在美国,生活在城市栖息地的野生土狼是否比生活在农村栖息地的野生土狼有更高的伯氏疏螺旋体血清转化率?临床底线研究问题类别患病率研究设计的数量和类型回顾了两篇论文,均采用横断面研究设计证据强度零结果报告相关研究提供的证据非常有限,甚至没有证据来回答这个PICO问题。在第一项研究中,虽然大都市地区伯氏疏螺旋体抗体阳性犬类(包括狗和郊狼)的绝对比例较高,但这种影响在统计上并不显著,可能是由于样本量小。在第二项研究中,我们比较了不同农村栖息地的伯氏疏螺旋体抗体的流行情况,但没有对城市郊狼进行测试作为比较,因此无法评估PICO问题。结论关于郊狼伯氏疏螺旋体的流行情况以及城乡环境之间的差异存在知识空白。野生土狼可以作为莱姆病活动的哨兵物种,并评估家养宠物和人类感染的可能性,这将为临床鉴别诊断以及检测和疫苗接种建议提供信息。如何将证据应用于实践应考虑多种因素,不限于:个人临床专业知识、患者的情况和所有者的价值观、您工作的国家、地点或诊所、您面前的个案、治疗方法和资源的可用性。知识摘要是帮助加强或告知决策的资源。他们不会凌驾于从业者的责任或判断之上,去做对他们照顾的动物最好的事情。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Borrelia burgdorferi exposure in coyotes: an indicator of B. burgdorferi levels in urban versus rural environments
PICO question Do wild coyotes in the US that are in an urban habitat compared to a rural habitat have a higher prevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi seroconversion?   Clinical bottom line Category of research question Prevalence The number and type of study designs reviewed Two papers, both utilising a cross-sectional study design Strength of evidence Zero Outcomes reported The relevant studies provide very limited to no evidence towards answering this PICO question. In one, while the absolute percentage of Borrelia-antibody-positive canines (including dogs in addition to coyotes) is higher in metropolitan areas, the effect was not found to be statistically significant, possibly due to their small sample sizes. In the second study, prevalence of antibodies against Borrelia was compared between different rural habitats, but no urban coyotes were tested as a comparison and thus the PICO question cannot be evaluated Conclusion There is a knowledge gap concerning the prevalence of Borrelia in coyotes and how it differs between urban and rural environments. Wild coyotes could be used as a sentinel species of Lyme disease activity and to assess potential for domestic pet and human infections, which would inform clinical differential diagnoses as well as testing and vaccination recommendations. More studies are needed before this PICO question can be answered in a confident manner   How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.  
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信