Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of binomial GLMs testing the influence of different predictor variables on the probability of Ehrlichia spp. (Model A) and Anaplasma spp. (Model B) seropositivity and for a positive result in the rapid ELISA in general (Model C), amongst 329 dogs from Nicaragua

From: Seroprevalence and current infections of canine vector-borne diseases in Nicaragua

 

Model A: Ehrlichia spp. seropositive

Model B: Anaplasma spp. seropositive

Model C: SNAP® 4Dx® Plus positive

Estimate

SE

Z

P

OR

Estimate

SE

Z

P

OR

Estimate

SE

Z

P

OR

Intercept

-1.85

0.44

-4.26

<0.001

 

-2.25

0.49

-4.55

<0.001

 

-1.13

0.39

-2.91

0.004

 

Sex (ref. male)

0.09

0.27

0.34

0.735

1.1

0.09

0.27

0.32

0.751

1.09

0.04

0.26

0.15

0.883

1.04

Age

0.11

0.05

2.33

0.020

1.11

-0.02

0.05

-0.44

0.663

0.98

0.13

0.05

2.69

0.007

1.14

Breed (ref. “with breed”)

-0.29

0.29

-0.99

0.321

0.75

-0.13

0.29

-0.43

0.669

0.88

-0.08

0.29

-0.28

0.779

0.92

Anaplasma spp. seropositive

1.61

0.37

4.40

<0.001

5

Ehrlichia spp. seropositive

1.62

0.37

4.42

<0.001

5.03

Tick infestation

0.18

0.28

0.65

0.513

1.2

0.05

0.28

0.16

0.871

1.05

0.26

0.27

0.96

0.335

1.3

Citya

 JU - JT

1.90

0.48

3.93

0.002

6.66

-0.59

0.59

-0.99

0.953

0.56

1.28

0.44

2.89

0.058

3.61

 MA - JT

2.42

0.47

5.09

<0.001

11.21

0.79

0.50

1.56

0.694

2.2

2.36

0.46

5.16

<0.001

10.55

 MY - JT

1.31

0.52

2.51

0.156

3.7

-0.79

0.71

-1.11

0.922

0.46

0.51

0.49

1.04

0.945

1.66

 CO - JT

0.84

0.58

1.46

0.768

2.33

0.35

0.67

0.53

0.998

1.43

0.51

0.54

0.95

0.964

1.67

 CH - JT

1.41

0.54

2.64

0.113

4.11

0.21

0.61

0.34

1.000

1.23

1.13

0.50

2.28

0.252

3.09

 LE - JT

2.58

0.52

4.98

<0.001

13.14

0.46

0.53

0.88

0.975

1.59

2.13

0.48

4.42

<0.001

8.43

 MA - JU

0.52

0.45

1.17

0.904

1.68

1.37

0.47

2.95

0.048

3.95

1.07

0.45

2.38

0.207

2.92

 MY - JU

-0.59

0.48

-1.23

0.882

0.55

-0.20

0.68

-0.30

1.000

0.82

-0.78

0.47

-1.65

0.647

0.46

 CO - JU

-1.05

0.55

-1.89

0.481

0.35

0.94

0.65

1.44

0.771

2.56

-0.77

0.53

-1.46

0.769

0.46

 CH - JU

-0.48

0.50

-0.97

0.959

0.62

0.79

0.59

1.34

0.823

2.21

-0.15

0.48

-0.32

1.000

0.86

 LE - JU

0.68

0.49

1.38

0.812

1.97

1.05

0.49

2.14

0.316

2.85

0.85

0.48

1.76

0.575

2.34

 MY - MA

-1.11

0.47

-2.36

0.216

0.33

-1.57

0.59

-2.65

0.106

0.21

-1.85

0.48

-3.84

<0.001

0.16

 CO - MA

-1.57

0.54

-2.91

0.055

0.21

-0.43

0.56

-0.77

0.987

0.65

-1.84

0.54

-3.43

0.011

0.16

 CH - MA

-1.00

0.50

-2.00

0.413

0.37

-0.58

0.50

-1.16

0.903

0.56

-1.23

0.50

-2.45

0.178

0.29

 LE - MA

0.16

0.50

0.32

1.000

1.17

-0.32

0.38

-0.84

0.979

0.73

-0.22

0.51

-0.44

0.999

0.8

 CO - MY

-0.46

0.57

-0.82

0.983

0.63

1.14

0.74

1.54

0.712

3.13

0.01

0.55

0.01

1.000

1.0

 CH - MY

0.11

0.54

0.20

1.000

1.11

0.99

0.70

1.41

0.785

2.7

0.62

0.52

1.20

0.893

1.86

 LE - MY

1.27

0.54

2.36

0.211

3.55

1.25

0.63

1.98

0.418

3.49

1.62

0.53

3.09

0.033

5.08

 CH - CO

0.57

0.60

0.95

0.964

1.77

-0.15

0.67

-0.22

1.000

0.86

0.62

0.57

1.08

0.933

1.85

 LE - CO

1.73

0.60

2.89

0.059

5.65

0.11

0.61

0.18

1.000

1.11

1.62

0.58

2.79

0.077

5.05

 LE - CH

1.16

0.55

2.12

0.336

3.2

0.26

0.53

0.49

0.999

1.29

1.00

0.53

1.88

0.489

2.73

  1. Full models were significantly different from null models containing only an intercept: likelihood ratio test, χ2 = 92.3, df = 11, P < 0.001 (Model A); χ2 = 53.7, df = 11, P < 0.001 (Model B); and χ2 = 60.5, df = 11, P < 0.001 (Model C). Significant P-values (≤ 0.05) are printed in bold
  2. aMultiple comparisons between levels of the factor “City” were performed using Tukey contrasts with single-step P-value adjustment.
  3. Abbreviations: JU, Juigalpa; JT, Jinotega; MA, Managua; MY, Masaya; CO, Corinto; CH, Chinandega; LE, Léon; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error