Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of point or pooled prevalence estimates (meta-analysis using random effects model) by serological vs non-serological methods for the different orders of potential Trypanosoma cruzi animal reservoirs studied in Colombia

From: Heterogeneity of Trypanosoma cruzi infection rates in vectors and animal reservoirs in Colombia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Order/family/species

Diagnostic subgroup

No. of studies

Potential reservoirs (n)

Potential reservoirs (+)

Pooled prevalence (%)

95% CI

I2 (%)

Ï„ 2

P-value

Carnivora

Non-serological

11

940

347

17

5–33

96

0.08

<0.01

Family Canidae/Canis lupus familiaris

Serological

4

430

196

24

1–64

98

0.17

<0.01

Non-serological

5

257

89

14

1–37

93

0.07

<0.01

Mixed

1

242

62

26

2–31

–

–

–

Family Felidae

Non-serological

1

11

0

0

0–15

–

–

–

Chiroptera

Non-serological

6

20,267

1010

15

5–29

96

0.04

<0.01

Cingulata

Non-serological

1

21

4

19

5–39

–

–

–

Pilosa

Non-serological

1

46

0

0

0–4

–

–

–

Didelphimorphia

Non-serological

5

310

80

35

16–57

92

0.06

<0.01

Didelphis marsupialis

Non-serological

5

161

73

48

26–71

88

0.07

<0.01

Other Didelphis

Non-serological

3

148

6

3

0–10

62

0.09

0.07

Primates

Non-serological

1

343

53

15

12–19

–

–

–

Rodentia

Non-serological

5

799

59

6

2–12

77

0.01

<0.01

Other non-classified species

Non-serological

1

10

2

20

1–51

–

–

–

  1. Notes: Non-serological: includes parasitological methods (blood smears hemoculture and xenodiagnostic) and molecular methods (PCR)
  2. Serological: includes ELISA, IFAT or rapid tests based on the whole parasite or recombined antigens; +: positive