Skip to main content

Table 3 Prevalence (%) of Echinococcus spp. in each small mammal species (no. of infected individuals detected/ total no. individuals, 95% confidence intervals as percentage)

From: Echinococcus multilocularis and Echinococcus shiquicus in a small mammal community on the eastern Tibetan Plateau: host species composition, molecular prevalence, and epidemiological implications

Species E. multilocularis E. shiquicus Overall Echinococcus spp.
Conservative prevalence Maximum prevalence Conservative prevalence Maximum prevalence Conservative prevalence Maximum prevalence
C. longicaudatus 0 (0/1) 0 (0/1) 0 (0/1) – (1/1) 0 (0/1) – (1/1)
P. leucurus 0 (0/16) 0 (0/16) 0 (0/16) 6.3 (1/16; 0–18.1) 0 (0/16) 6.3 (1/16; 0–18.1)
N. irene 0 (0/6) 0 (0/6) 0 (0/6) 0 (0/6) 0 (0/6) 0 (0/6)
M. limnophilus 9.1 (4/44; 0–19.7)a 11.4 (5/44; 2.0–20.7)c 6.8 (3/44; 0–14.3) 11.4 (5/44; 2.0–20.7)e 15.9 (7/44; 5.1–26.7)f 22.7 (10/44; 10.3–35.1)h
L. fuscus 7.6 (11/144; 3.3–12.0)b 11.1 (16/144; 6.0–16.2)d 0.7 (1/144; 0–2.1) 1.4(2/144; 0–3.3)e 8.3 (12/144; 3.8–12.9)g 12.5 (18/144; 7.1–17.9)i
O. curzoniae 0 (0/135)a,b 1.5 (2/135; 0–3.5)c,d 0.7 (1/135; 0–2.2) 3.7 (5/135; 0.5–6.9) 0.7 (1/135; 0–2.2)f,g 5.2 (7/135; 1.4–8.9)h,i
Total 4.3 (15/346; 2.2–6.5) 6.7 (23/346; 4.0–9.3) 1.5 (5/346; 0.2–2.7) 4.1 (14 /346; 2.0–6.1) 5.8 (20/346; 3.3–8.2) 10.7 (37/346; 7.4–14.0)
  1. Statistical results for C. longicaudatus, P. leucurus and N. irene are not provided due to small sample sizes
  2. aSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 8.737, df = 1, P = 0.003)
  3. bSignificant differences detected between L. fuscus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 8.814, df = 1, P = 0.003)
  4. cSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 6.195, df = 1, P = 0.013)
  5. dSignificant differences detected between L. fuscus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 9.169, df = 1, P = 0.002)
  6. eSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and L. fuscus (χ2 = 6.7785, df = 1, P = 0.009)
  7. fSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 14.506, df = 1, P < 0.001)
  8. gSignificant differences detected between L. fuscus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 7.414, df = 1, P = 0.006)
  9. hSignificant differences detected between M. limnophilus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 9.927, df = 1, P = 0.002)
  10. iSignificant differences detected between L. fuscus and O. curzoniae (χ2 = 3.718, df = 1, P = 0.05)