Table 1 Comparisons between positivity rates to Ehrlichia spp. and Anaplasma spp. and different variables
From: Ehrlichia spp. infection in rural dogs from remote indigenous villages in north-eastern Brazil
Variables | n | Ehrlichia spp. | Anaplasma spp. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Positive | % (95% CI) | Statistical analysis | Positive | % (95% CI) | Statistical analysis | |||
Age | < 1 | 68 | 27 | 39.7 (28.1–51.3) | χ2 = 40.662, df = 1, P = 0.0001 | 10 | 14.7 (6.3–23.1) | χ2 = 4.164, df = 1, P = 0.0413 |
≥ 1 | 232 | 185 | 79.8 (74.4–84.9) | 62 | 26.8 (21–32.4) | |||
Gender | Male | 179 | 132 | 73.8 (67.3–80.2) | χ2 = 2.026, df = 1, P = 0.1546 | 40 | 22.4 (16.2–28.4) | χ2 = 0.665, df = 1, P = 0.4147 |
Female | 121 | 80 | 66.2 (57.7–74.5) | 32 | 26.5 (18.6–34.3) | |||
Tick infestation | Absent | 209 | 150 | 71.8 (65.7–77.9) | χ2 = 3.235, df = 3, P = 0.3568 | 48 | 23.0 (17.3–28.7) | G = 2.3918, df = 1, P = 0.4952 |
Low | 49 | 35 | 71.5 (58.8–84.1) | 10 | 20.4 (9.1–31.7) | |||
Medium | 23 | 17 | 73.9 (not calculated) | 8 | 34.8 (15.3–54.2) | |||
High | 19 | 10 | 52.6 (not calculated) | 6 | 31.6 (not calculated) | |||
Flea infestation | Absent | 167 | 127 | 76.1 (69.6–82.5) | χ2 = 10.099, df = 3, P = 0.0177 | 40 | 24.0 (17.5–30.4) | χ2 = 1.544, df = 3, P = 0.6722 |
Low | 71 | 47 | 66.2 (55.2–77.2) | 20 | 28.2 (17.7–38.6) | |||
Medium | 33 | 24 | 72.8 (57.5–87.9) | 7 | 21.3 (7.3–35.2) | |||
High | 29 | 14 | 48.3 (30.1–66.5) | 5 | 17.2 (not calculated) | |||
Clinical status | Sick | 179 | 136 | 76.0 (69.7–82.2) | χ2 = 6.039, df = 1, P = 0.0140 | 46 | 25.7 (19.3–32.1) | χ2 = 0.702, df = 1, P = 0.4022 |
Healthy | 121 | 76 | 62.8 (54.2–71.4) | 26 | 21.5 (14.2–28.8) | |||
Level of restriction | Restricted | 35 | 23 | 65.8 (50.0–81.4) | χ2 = 0.469, df = 1, P = 0.4935 | 6 | 17.1 (not calculated) | χ2 = 1.021, df = 1, P = 0.3122 |
Semi-restricted | 265 | 189 | 71.4 (65.9–76.8) | 66 | 24.9 (19.7–30.1) | |||