IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0153856.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating the Determinants of Toxoplasma gondii Prevalence in Meat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

Author

Listed:
  • Simone Belluco
  • Marzia Mancin
  • Daniele Conficoni
  • Giulia Simonato
  • Mario Pietrobelli
  • Antonia Ricci

Abstract

Background: Toxoplasma gondii is one of the most widespread parasites in humans and can cause severe illness in immunocompromised individuals. However, its role in healthy people is probably under-appreciated. The complex epidemiology of this protozoan recognizes several infection routes but consumption of contaminated food is likely to be the predominant one. Among food, consumption of raw and undercooked meat is a relevant route of transmission, but the role of different meat producing animal species and meats thereof is controversial. Objectives: The aim of the present work is to summarize and analyse literature data reporting prevalence estimates of T. gondii in meat animals/meats. Data Sources: We searched Medline, Web of Science, Science Direct (last update 31/03/2015). Eligibility Criteria: Relevant papers should report data from primary studies dealing with the prevalence of T. gondii in meat from livestock species as obtained through direct detection methods. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. Results: Of 1915 papers screened, 69 papers were included, dealing mainly with cattle, pigs and sheep. Pooled prevalences, based on random-effect models, were 2.6% (CI95 [0.5–5.8]) for cattle, 12.3% (CI95 [7.6–17.8]) for pigs and 14.7% (CI95 [8.9–21.5]) for sheep. Due to the high heterogeneity observed, univariable and multivariable meta-regression models were fitted showing that the geographic area for cattle (p = 0.032), the farming type for pigs (p = 0.0004) and the sample composition for sheep (p = 0.03) had significant effects on the prevalences of Toxoplasma detected/estimated. Moreover, the role of different animal species was dependent on the geographic location of animals’ origin. Limitations: Limitations were due mainly to a possible publication bias. Conclusions and Implications: The present work confirms the role of meat, including beef, as T. gondii sources, and highlights the need for a control system for this parasite to be implemented along the meat production chain. Moreover, consumer knowledge should be strengthened in order to reduce the impact of disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Simone Belluco & Marzia Mancin & Daniele Conficoni & Giulia Simonato & Mario Pietrobelli & Antonia Ricci, 2016. "Investigating the Determinants of Toxoplasma gondii Prevalence in Meat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153856
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153856
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153856&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0153856?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neal S Young, 2008. "Why Current Publication May Distort Science," Working Papers id:1757, eSocialSciences.
    2. Neal S Young & John P A Ioannidis & Omar Al-Ubaydli, 2008. "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-5, October.
    3. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marcelle Mareze & Aline do Nascimento Benitez & Ana Pérola Drulla Brandão & Fernanda Pinto-Ferreira & Ana Carolina Miura & Felippe Danyel Cardoso Martins & Eloiza Teles Caldart & Alexander Welker Bion, 2019. "Socioeconomic vulnerability associated to Toxoplasma gondii exposure in southern Brazil," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Kirmayer, Laurence J., 2012. "Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health: Epistemic communities and the politics of pluralism," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 249-256.
    4. Chris Doucouliagos & T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Are All Economic Facts Greatly Exaggerated? Theory Competition And Selectivity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 316-339, April.
    5. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    7. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Dana Suskind, 2019. "The science of using science: Towards an understanding of the threats to scaling experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00670, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Stephan B. Bruns, 2013. "Identifying Genuine Effects in Observational Research by Means of Meta-Regressions," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-040, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    9. Judith G M Bergboer & Maša Umićević-Mirkov & Jaap Fransen & Martin den Heijer & Barbara Franke & Piet L C M van Riel & Joost Schalkwijk & Marieke J H Coenen & on behalf of the Nijmegen Biomedical Stud, 2012. "A Replication Study of the Association between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Deletion of the Late Cornified Envelope Genes LCE3B and LCE3C," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-5, February.
    10. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List & Dana L. Suskind, 2017. "What Can We Learn from Experiments? Understanding the Threats to the Scalability of Experimental Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 282-286, May.
    11. Brian P Walcott & Sameer A Sheth & Brian V Nahed & Jean-Valery Coumans, 2012. "Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-4, August.
    12. Mark D Lindner & Richard K Nakamura, 2015. "Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, June.
    13. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    14. Gregory S Barsh & Gregory P Copenhaver, 2009. "Scientists←Editors←Scientists: The Past, Present, and Future of PLoS Genetics," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-2, July.
    15. Boomsma, Mirthe, 2021. "On the transition to a sustainable economy : Field experimental evidence on behavioral interventions," Other publications TiSEM a0a27602-10ed-4ab1-87a5-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Mitesh Kataria, 2010. "The Role of Preferences in Disagreements over Scientific Hypothesis: An Empirical Inquiry into Environmental and Economic Decision Making," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-088, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    17. Nelson, Jon P., 2014. "Estimating the price elasticity of beer: Meta-analysis of data with heterogeneity, dependence, and publication bias," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 180-187.
    18. T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Does economics add up? An introduction to meta-regression analysis," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 10(2), pages 207-220.
    19. Christine R Harris & Noriko Coburn & Doug Rohrer & Harold Pashler, 2013. "Two Failures to Replicate High-Performance-Goal Priming Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-1, August.
    20. Martin Paldam, 2016. "Simulating an empirical paper by the rational economist," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1383-1407, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153856. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.