Skip to main content

Advertisement

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