2020
DOI: 10.1002/vms3.300
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) in Africa and Asia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the prevalence in sheep and goats between 1969 and 2018

Abstract: Background Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) is a prevalent viral disease of sheep and goats that impacts productivity and international animal trade. Despite the substantial economic consequences related to PPR, little is known about the prevalence of this disease at the broad geographical levels. Objective The present study aimed to use a systematic approach to assess the regional prevalence of PPR in sheep and goats, and the associated factors that contribute to prevalence estimates. Methods Published articl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 146 publications
(81 reference statements)
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In both Benishangul-gumz and Tigray region are adjacent with the border and may be getting an access of infection from abroad country. This report in line with Ahaduzzaman [20] explained that the variation of the disease prevalence like PPR could be the trans boundary movement of infected animals with inadequate quarantine, the presence of hot and humid climatic conditions that favor disease epidemiology, lack of vaccination or vaccine administration monitoring which may facilitate disease spread, lack of awareness about PPR among backyard farmers, and limited funding for disease eradication in developing or underdeveloped countries. Moreover many studies included in this meta-analysis used serum sample or symptomatic diagnostic approaches to report PPR prevalence; such approaches can quickly reveal the status of a large population [10,11] could lead to variability across region.…”
Section: Publication Bias Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…In both Benishangul-gumz and Tigray region are adjacent with the border and may be getting an access of infection from abroad country. This report in line with Ahaduzzaman [20] explained that the variation of the disease prevalence like PPR could be the trans boundary movement of infected animals with inadequate quarantine, the presence of hot and humid climatic conditions that favor disease epidemiology, lack of vaccination or vaccine administration monitoring which may facilitate disease spread, lack of awareness about PPR among backyard farmers, and limited funding for disease eradication in developing or underdeveloped countries. Moreover many studies included in this meta-analysis used serum sample or symptomatic diagnostic approaches to report PPR prevalence; such approaches can quickly reveal the status of a large population [10,11] could lead to variability across region.…”
Section: Publication Bias Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Annual total income ranged from US$1,424 to US$ 3,125, and the share of agricultural income in the total income ranged from 24 to 65% (table 3 ). In a recent metaanalysis, PPR prevalence was estimated at 25% in Ethiopia (Ahaduzzaman, 2020). in Mali, individual PPR prevalence was reported to be 42.6%, with high variations between regions (5.5 to 59.1%) (Kamissoko et al, 2013).…”
Section: Household Impactmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On an annual basis, PPR causes economic losses of the equivalent to around US $1.2 to 1.7 billion due to animal deaths, reduced production, and the cost of fighting the disease [ 9 ]. Approximately one-third of the financial losses occur in Africa and a quarter in South Asia [ 10 , 11 ]. However, current efforts are now being directed towards the PPR Global Control and Eradication Program (PPR GEP), an initiative of the global animal health community coordinated through the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations [ 12 , 13 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, current efforts are now being directed towards the PPR Global Control and Eradication Program (PPR GEP), an initiative of the global animal health community coordinated through the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations [ 12 , 13 ]. It was estimated that an investment of US $7.1 billion on PPR GEP could be recovered within five years of successful eradication [ 11 ]. This gives an overall benefit–cost ratio of 33.8 for the most likely situation, which makes PPR eradication economically feasible [ 12 , 14 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%