Abstract
Giardia duodenalis is one of the major causes of diarrhea among children. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of G. duodenalis and associated risk factors among Asian children. We searched online databases (PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and Google Scholar search engine for studies published from 1 January 2000 to 15 March 2022 that measured the prevalence of G. duodenalis among Asian children. Accordingly, the pooled prevalence and 95% CIs were estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis model for the included studies. A total of 182 articles from 22 Asian countries met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of G. duodenalis infection among Asian children was estimated as 15.1% (95% CI 14.1 to 16%). The highest and lowest pooled prevalence values of G. duodenalis infection were estimated for Tajikistan and China as 26.4% (95% CI 22.9 to 30%) and 0.6% (95% CI 0.001 to 1.02%), respectively. The infection had a higher prevalence in males than in females (OR=1.24; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.31; p<0.001), which was statistically significant. Giardiasis is common among Asian children, hence, a prevention and control scheme of this protozoan in children should be considered by health officials and health policymakers, especially in Asian countries where the prevalence is highest.
Keywords: Asia, children, Giardia duodenalis, meta-analysis
Introduction
Diarrhea is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality among children, particularly those living in underdeveloped or developing nations.1–3 Accordingly, unsafe water, sanitation and childhood malnutrition are the leading risk factors for diarrhea, especially in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.1,4 Overall, diarrhea is the cause of mortality of about 480 000 young children worldwide, and in 2019 was responsible for 9% of all deaths among children aged <5 y (https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-health/diarrhoeal-disease/). According to WHO reports in 2010, giardiasis is estimated to cause approximately 28.2 million cases of diarrhea.5,6 Among infectious agents, giardiasis is one of the major causes of diarrhea in developing countries.7 Giardia duodenalis is an intestinal protozoan parasite with a worldwide distribution in human and animals.8–10 The fecal–oral route is the main transmission mode of G. duodenalis.8,10,11 Drinking water, food and vegetables contaminated by G. duodenalis cysts are the main sources of transmission.10,12,13 The distribution of G. duodenalis in different communities is related to sanitation status, health measures and the quality of the drinking water.14 In this regard, the prevalence of G. duodenalis is much lower in developed countries than in less-developed geographical areas.7,15 Symptomatic giardiasis is significantly associated with worsening of nutritional status among children aged <5 y in Asian and African countries.16 The common clinical manifestations of giardiasis include greasy diarrhea (steatorrhea), nausea, vomiting, abdominal bloating, cramps, malabsorption and weight loss.17,18 Moreover, chronic giardiasis is related to food allergies,19 irritable bowel syndrome,20 chronic fatigue syndrome21 and arthritis,22 as well as growth deficiency in children.23 Previous studies have shown that individuals with a weak immune system, such as pregnant women and immunocompromised patients (e.g. with cancer, HIV/AIDS, etc.), are at a higher risk of G. duodenalis infection.10,24–26 Also, children are at a higher risk of G. duodenalis infection.10,24–26 Children have more contact with different environmental sources and also have immature immune systems to fight infections.27,28 Therefore, this group has a higher probability of contracting infectious agents. According to a recent meta-analysis,29 the risk factors for giardiasis were determined as exposure to sewage/wastewater, untreated drinking water and recreational waters. Interestingly, contact with pets was found to be a significant risk factor for giardiasis in children. Travel abroad was a risk factor for giardiasis in industrialized countries.29 A previous meta-analysis by Muhsen and Levine7 revealed the association between endemic pediatric diarrhea and giardiasis in developing countries. Asia is the world's largest continent with the highest human population. A large number of underdeveloped or developing countries are located in Asia. Therefore, determination of the epidemiological patterns of G. duodenalis infection in children is necessary to design future control programs and preventive measures to reduce the incidence of the infection in Asian countries. To address this gap, we designed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of G. duodenalis and associated risk factors in children in Asia.
Methods
Information sources and systematic search
This systematic review and meta-analysis was followed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol.30 Published literature on the prevalence of G. duodenalis in children in Asia was retrieved through three major databases (i.e. PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and Google Scholar search engine from 1 January 2000 to 15 March 2022. The search process was accomplished using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms alone or in combination: (‘Intestinal protozoa’ OR ‘Giardia’ OR ‘Giardiasis’) AND (‘Prevalence’ OR ‘Epidemiology’) AND (‘Children’). Moreover, the reference lists of all the selected articles were hand-searched to find other relevant articles or their citations by searching in Google Scholar.
Inclusion criteria, study selection and data extraction
To assess article eligibility based on the determined inclusion criteria, all the papers were reviewed by two independent reviewers and possible contradictions among studies were removed by discussion and consensus. The inclusion criteria for this systematic review were: (1) full texts or abstracts published in English from Asia; (2) peer-reviewed original research papers or short reports; (3) cross-sectional studies that estimated the prevalence of Giardia in children (aged ≤18 y); (4) utilizing fecal microscopy, coproantigen or molecular diagnostic methods; (5) reports with information on the total sample size and positive samples; and (6) published online from 1 January 2000 to 15 March 2022. Those papers without full-text accessibility or papers that did not meet the above criteria were excluded. Next, the desired data were gathered precisely using a data extraction form including each first author's surname, the year in which the study was conducted and the publication year, countries, provinces or cities, the types of method used, total sample sizes, the number of positive samples, types of children, gender and age of the children, as well as the presence or absence of diarrhea.
Study quality assessment
The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist was applied for the risk of bias (internal validity) assessment of the included articles.31 This checklist comprises 10 questions, with four options consisting of Yes, No, Unclear and Not applicable. In summary, a study can be awarded a maximum of one star for each numbered item. Those papers with a total score of either 4–6 or 7–10 points were specified as being of moderate or high quality, respectively. Based on the score each paper obtained, the authors decided to either include (4–10 points) or exclude (≤3 points) it.
Meta-analysis
For each of the included studies, the point estimates and their respective 95% CIs were calculated using a random effect model (REM). The REM allows for a distribution of true effect sizes between articles. To visualize possible heterogeneity among the included studies, forest plot analysis was used. The heterogeneity index among the included studies was defined using the I2 index and Tau squared to reveal the variation in study outcomes between individual studies.32,33 Univariate and multivariable meta-regression analysis was used to estimate the effects of probable factors in heterogeneity.33 To investigate the effect of each study on the pooled estimation of prevalence, the sensitivity analysis method was used by removing studies one by one. The robustness of each model was evaluated and, finally, the most favorable model was chosen.
Using subgroup analyses, the pooled prevalence of Giardia infection was estimated according to countries, types of diagnostic methods, types of children and the periods of studies. An OR (and the corresponding 95% CI) was calculated for each study to assess the association between Giardia spp. prevalence and risk factors such as sex (male and female) and place of living (rural and urban).
We used funnel plots and Egger's test for examining funnel plot asymmetry to assess the risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. Furthermore, the trim-and-fill method was used to estimate the number of censored studies and correct the overall estimate.33
Moreover, because of different sensitivities and specificities of diagnostic methods, we assumed that our results would be ‘apparent’ prevalence rates, which did not represent true prevalence rates. The prevalence of G. duodenalis in children in different countries of Asia was demonstrated as a world map using ArcGIS 10.3 software (https://www.arcgis.com). This meta-analysis was conducted with Stata version 16 software and the trial version of comprehensive meta-analysis software (version 3, BIOSTAT, Englewood, NJ, USA) version 3. p<0.05 was considered significant.
Results
Characteristics of the eligible studies
A flowchart depicting the identification process of the qualifying studies is presented in Figure 1. In brief, the systematic search identified 5162 potentially relevant articles. After removing duplicates and/or non-eligible papers, 182 articles from 22 countries across Asia met the inclusion criteria in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The countries with the highest number of studies were Iran (22.52%; 41/182 studies) and Iraq (19.23%; 35/182 studies). The main characteristics of each study are shown in Supplementary Table 1. The results of quality assessment according to JBI with references for eligible studies are depicted in Supplementary Table 1. The articles included in the current meta-analysis displayed acceptable quality.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram describing included/excluded studies.
The pooled prevalence of G. duodenalis in children
We estimated that the pooled prevalence of G. duodenalis for children in Asia, using REM, was 15.1% (95% CI 14.1 to 16%) (Q statistic=37713.61, d.f.=182, p<0.0001, I2=99.5%, Tau squared=0.0033); after sensitivity analysis using one-by-one removal of studies, the best robustness model was selected.
According to I2=99.5% and the significance of the Q statistic, it was detected that heterogeneity between studies was high, so univariate and multivariable meta-regression models were used to discover the causes of heterogeneity (Table 1). Univariate meta-regression analysis showed that year of study (p<0.001) could be the source of heterogeneity. In the next step, the multivariable meta-regression showed that year of study (B-coefficient= −0.00494, p<0.001) might have been the source of heterogeneity. This means that a change in the publication year can decrease the prevalence by −0.00494. Furthermore, the multivariable meta-regression analysis did show a significant difference in the location of studies, sample size, type of study population and year of study (p<0.05) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Univariate and multivariable meta-regression to find possible causes of heterogeneity between studies included in the meta-analysis; N=183, tau2=0.004751, I-squared residual=99.09%, Adj R-squared= −43.63%, p=0.035
| Univariate | Multivariable | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Possible cause of heterogeneity | Coefficient (95% CI) | p | Coefficient (95% CI) | p |
| Location | −0.00023 (−0.00436 to 0.00389) | 0.115 | −0.00348 (−0.00378 to −0.00318) | 0.047 |
| Risk of bias | −0.01761 (−0.04501 to 0.00977) | 0.206 | −0.02034 (−0.04811 to 0.00742) | 0.150 |
| Year | −0.00431 (−0.00458 to −0.00405) | <0.001 | −0.00494 (−0.00519 to −0.00470) | <0.001 |
| Sample size | −1.1606 (−2.8906 to 5.7007) | 0.189 | −1.0907 (−1.5207 to −6.6808) | <0.001 |
| Type of study population | −0.00185 (−0.00386 to 0.00016) | 0.071 | 0.00145 (0.00130 to 0.00160) | <0.001 |
| Diagnostic method | 0.02832 (−0.00572 to 0.06238) | 0.103 | 0.03422 (−0.00145 to 0.06990) | 0.060 |
Significant difference with p<0.05.
Based on geographical regions, among the countries, the highest and lowest pooled prevalence values of G. duodenalis for children in Asia were estimated for Tajikistan and China as 26.4% (95% CI 22.9 to 30%) and 0.6% (95% CI 0.001 to 1.02%), respectively (Table 2). Also, schematic maps of the prevalence of G. duodenalis in children were created based on studies conducted in various countries in Asia (Figure 2). Based on the type of study population, the estimated G. duodenalis prevalence is: children with Helicobacter pylori 48.6% (95% CI 32.5 to 64.8%), preschool and school children (mixed) 42.1% (95% CI 19.4 to 78.3%), children with malignancies 22.6% (95% CI 13.4 to 31.7%), primary school children 17.8% (95% CI 12.4 to 23.3%), children (mixed) 16.5% (95% CI 15.4 to 17.6%), children living in a child care center 16% (95% CI 10.2 to 21.9%), preschool children 15% (95% CI 10.9 to 19.2%), school children 11.5% (95% CI 14.3 to 16%), children with diarrhea 10.7% (95% CI 7.08 to 13.5%), children with gastrointestinal disorders 6.07% (95% CI 2.02 to 11.3%) and malnourished children 0.08% (95% CI 0.01 to 14.9%) (Table 2). The pooled prevalence by type of diagnostic method is: based on ELISA 24.8% (95% CI 20.3 to 29.3%), microscopic examination 14.8% (95% CI 13.9 to 15.7%), PCR 35.2% (95% CI 21.1 to 49.2%) and real-time PCR assay 5.05% (95% CI 1.08 to 9.02%) (Table 2). In addition, the highest prevalence was in 2005 at 27.8% (95% CI 1.07 to 53.9%) and lowest in 2021 at 4.03% (95% CI 0.001 to 0.08%) and 2022 at 0.001% (95% CI 0.0001 to 0.002%) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Pooled prevalence of G. duodenalis in children in Asia
| Heterogeneity | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | No. of studies | No. examined | No. positive | Prevalence (95% CI) | χ2 | p | I² (%) | Tau squared | |
| Country | Afghanistan | 1 | 245 | 52 | 21.2% (16.1 to 26.3%) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Bangladesh | 4 | 1429 | 414 | 24.5% (3.08 to 45.2%) | 356.37 | <0.001 | 99.2% | 0.0441 | |
| Cambodia | 6 | 19 398 | 1599 | 8.09% (5.04 to 12.4%) | 194.03 | <0.001 | 97.4% | 0.0018 | |
| China | 4 | 14 484 | 35 | 0.6% (0.001 to 1.02%) | 18.55 | <0.001 | 83.8% | 0.00001 | |
| India | 19 | 7192 | 1131 | 15.3% (10.6 to 20%) | 959.37 | <0.001 | 98.1% | 0.0106 | |
| Indonesia | 2 | 192 | 41 | 21.3% (6.03 to 36.4%) | 6.81 | 0.009 | 85.3% | 0.0100 | |
| Iran | 41 | 217 202 | 15 725 | 15.3% (13.8 to 16.8%) | 5419.21 | <0.001 | 99.2% | 0.0021 | |
| Iraq | 35 | 25 338 | 4057 | 17.2% (14 to 20.3%) | 4074.52 | <0.001 | 99.2% | 0.0086 | |
| Israel | 2 | 45 490 | 5228 | 11.8% (9.09 to 13.7%) | 1.23 | 0.268 | 18.6% | 0.0001 | |
| Jordan | 2 | 2665 | 1025 | 21.7% (19.4 to 62.7%) | 1346.84 | <0.001 | 99.9% | 0.0876 | |
| Malaysia | 4 | 1082 | 276 | 26% (18.1 to 34%) | 24.88 | <0.001 | 87.9% | 0.0055 | |
| Nepal | 14 | 11 422 | 2774 | 15.3% (5.01 to 25.6%) | 4247.52 | <0.001 | 99.7% | 0.0377 | |
| Pakistan | 14 | 4112 | 669 | 18.4% (13.4 to 23.4%) | 361.62 | <0.001 | 96.4% | 0.0083 | |
| Palestine | 5 | 5434 | 756 | 11.8% (5.02 to 18.4%) | 266.54 | <0.001 | 98.5% | 0.0056 | |
| Philippines | 1 | 172 | 20 | 11.6% (6.08 to 16.4%) | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| Saudi Arabia | 7 | 2824 | 139 | 6.04% (3.07 to 9%) | 125.48 | <0.001 | 95.2% | 0.0010 | |
| Sri Lanka | 2 | 345 | 33 | 9.01% (4.06 to 13.6%) | 2.23 | 0.136 | 55.1% | 0.0006 | |
| Syria | 3 | 2943 | 346 | 10.9% (5.07 to 16.1%) | 42.66 | <0.001 | 95.3% | 0.0020 | |
| Tajikistan | 1 | 594 | 157 | 26.4% (22.9 to 30%) | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| Thailand | 10 | 6405 | 360 | 8.06% (6.02 to 11.1) | 255.25 | <0.001 | 96.5% | 0.0013 | |
| Turkey | 1 | 357 | 67 | 18.8% (14.7 to 22.8%) | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| Yemen | 4 | 10 206 | 771 | 25.3% (6.09 to 43.6%) | 454.46 | <0.001 | 99.3% | 0.0347 | |
| Type of study population | Children (mixed) | 79 | 276 440 | 21 005 | 16.5% (15.4 to 17.6%) | 20 366.69 | <0.001 | 99.6% | 0.0022 |
| Children living in the child care center | 8 | 2396 | 382 | 16% (10.2 to 21.9%) | 130.32 | <0.001 | 94.6% | 0.0064 | |
| Children with diarrhea | 13 | 8145 | 686 | 10.7% (7.08 to 13.5%) | 495.11 | <0.001 | 97.6% | 0.0024 | |
| Children with gastrointestinal disorders | 4 | 1511 | 95 | 6.07% (2.02 to 11.3%) | 50.15 | <0.001 | 94.0% | 0.0020 | |
| Children with Helicobacter pylori | 1 | 37 | 18 | 48.6% (32.5 to 64.8%) | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| Children with malignancies | 2 | 195 | 45 | 22.6% (13.4 to 31.7%) | 2.49 | 0.114 | 59.9% | 0.0026 | |
| Malnourished children | 2 | 185 | 16 | 0.08% (0.01 to 14.9%) | 3.22 | 0.073 | 68.9% | 0.0017 | |
| Mixed of preschool and school children | 2 | 2303 | 1369 | 42.1% (19.4 to 78.3%) | 1329.19 | <0.001 | 99.9% | 0.1963 | |
| Preschool children | 11 | 3740 | 505 | 15% (10.9 to 19.2%) | 164.14 | <0.001 | 93.9% | 0.0044 | |
| Primary school children | 17 | 12 775 | 2824 | 17.8% (12.4 to 23.3%) | 1115.77 | <0.001 | 98.6% | 0.0128 | |
| School children | 43 | 71 804 | 8730 | 11.5% (14.3 to 16%) | 3837.01 | <0.001 | 98.9% | 0.0047 | |
| Diagnostic method | ELISA | 2 | 350 | 87 | 24.8% (20.3 to 29.3%) | 0.27 | 0.605 | 0.0% | 0.0000 |
| Microscopic examination | 173 | 374 931 | 35 083 | 14.8% (13.9 to 15.7%) | 36 808.84 | <0.001 | 99.5% | 0.0034 | |
| PCR | 4 | 1221 | 432 | 35.2% (21.1 to 49.2%) | 80.29 | <0.001 | 96.3% | 0.0196 | |
| Real-time PCR assay | 3 | 3029 | 73 | 5.05% (1.08 to 9.02%) | 37 713.61 | <0.001 | 99.5% | 0.0033 | |
| Year | 2000 | 5 | 3850 | 772 | 18.3% (6.04 to 30.2%) | 623.74 | <0.001 | 99.4% | 0.0181 |
| 2001 | 4 | 4932 | 963 | 14.2% (6.04 to 12.2%) | 130.95 | <0.001 | 97.7% | 0.0061 | |
| 2002 | 8 | 3090 | 357 | 12.8% (8.01 to 17.4%) | 125.75 | <0.001 | 94.4% | 0.0040 | |
| 2003 | 8 | 10 684 | 750 | 20% (12.4 to 27.6%) | 262.96 | <0.001 | 97.3% | 0.0111 | |
| 2004 | 12 | 71 199 | 6305 | 12.9% (7.08 to 18%) | 1497.80 | <0.001 | 99.3% | 0.0079 | |
| 2005 | 6 | 3967 | 1681 | 27.8% (1.07 to 53.9%) | 2020.27 | <0.001 | 99.8% | 0.1058 | |
| 2006 | 7 | 11 438 | 2272 | 18.6% (9.02 to 28.1%) | 1786.97 | <0.001 | 99.7% | 0.0161 | |
| 2007 | 5 | 4437 | 746 | 19.5% (3.04 to 35.7%) | 820.62 | <0.001 | 99.5% | 0.0335 | |
| 2008 | 10 | 6348 | 1290 | 20.4% (13.2 to 27.6%) | 633.26 | <0.001 | 98.6% | 0.0130 | |
| 2009 | 6 | 5372 | 1232 | 27.4% (6.09 to 47.9%) | 1776.52 | <0.001 | 99.7% | 0.0650 | |
| 2010 | 7 | 2648 | 416 | 15% (10.3 to 19.7%) | 74.40 | <0.001 | 91.9% | 0.0037 | |
| 2011 | 16 | 132 764 | 7567 | 13.2% (10 to 16.4%) | 1038.87 | <0.001 | 98.6% | 0.0039 | |
| 2012 | 9 | 21 112 | 1575 | 8.03% (5.05 to 11.2%) | 393.21 | <0.001 | 98.0% | 0.0016 | |
| 2013 | 18 | 11 071 | 775 | 11.3% (8.05 to 14.1%) | 733.40 | <0.001 | 97.7% | 0.0033 | |
| 2014 | 16 | 53 515 | 6381 | 15.2% (12.1 to 18.4%) | 853.86 | <0.001 | 98.1% | 0.0039 | |
| 2015 | 7 | 4428 | 604 | 13.3% (7.03 to 19.3%) | 273.97 | <0.001 | 97.8% | 0.0061 | |
| 2016 | 7 | 2105 | 474 | 19.7% (7.04 to 32.1%) | 589.27 | <0.001 | 99.0% | 0.0271 | |
| 2017 | 4 | 1051 | 110 | 14.8% (3.02 to 26.4%) | 102.65 | <0.001 | 97.1% | 0.0133 | |
| 2018 | 11 | 5854 | 781 | 14.4% (9.07 to 19%) | 385.01 | <0.001 | 97.4% | 0.0058 | |
| 2019 | 6 | 4556 | 182 | 7.05% (4.05 to 10.5%) | 163.12 | <0.001 | 96.9% | 0.0011 | |
| 2020 | 6 | 1826 | 356 | 23.3% (10 to 36.6%) | 309.67 | <0.001 | 98.4% | 0.0268 | |
| 2021 | 3 | 1709 | 75 | 4.03% (0.001 to 0.08%) | 49.34 | <0.001 | 95.9% | 0.0013 | |
| 2022 | 1 | 11 575 | 11 | 0.001% (0.0001 to 0.002%) | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.
Figure 2.
Prevalence of G. duodenalis in children based in countries in Asia.
Risk factors
Based on children's gender, males had a higher prevalence of G. duodenalis than females (OR=1.24; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.31; p<0.001) (Q statistic=110.18, d.f.=49, p<0.0001, I2=55.53%, Tau squared=0.064), which was statistically significant (Figure 3). Moreover, children living in rural areas had a higher infection rate than those in urban areas (OR=1.32; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.89; p=0.120) (Q statistic=46.13, d.f.=10, p<0.0001, I2=78.32%, Tau squared=0.226); however, this was not statistically significant (Figure 4).
Figure 3.
Association between male gender and prevalence of G. duodenalis in children.
Figure 4.
Association between living are and prevalence of G. duodenalis in children.
Publication bias
The funnel plots and Egger's test show that there is publication bias for studies reporting the prevalence of G. duodenalis in children (bias=9.22034, 95% CI 7.377599 to 11.0631; p<0.001) (Figure 5).
Figure 5.
Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits for the detection of publication bias in this meta-analysis.
According to the trim-and-fill method, 90 hypothetical censored studies were estimated using non-parametric methods and regarded in the corrected meta-analysis. Therefore, the overall prevalence in children corrected by the REM based on the trim-and-fill model was estimated to be 3.04% (95% CI 2.05 to 4.03%) (Table 3).
Table 3.
Comparison of common and corrected meta-analysis results for publication bias
| Type of meta-analysis | Method | Number of studies | Pooled prevalence (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Usual meta-analysis | Random-effects | 182 | 15.1% (14.3 to 16%) |
| Filled meta-analysis | Random-effects | 273 | 3.04% (2.05 to 4.03%) |
Discussion
This is the first study to estimate the prevalence of G. duodenalis among children in Asian countries. The prevalence values obtained for G. duodenalis in the meta-analysis were relatively high, especially in studies that used the PCR method (Table 2). Traditionally, the microscopy detection method using staining procedures is considered the gold standard for the detection of cysts and/or trophozoites of G. duodenalis.34 However, molecular methods are preferred for conducting research activities because they have higher sensitivity and specificity and interpretation of the results is easier.35,36 Accordingly, the pooled prevalence provided by molecular methods could be closer to the true prevalence. For a deeper understanding of this issue, it is necessary for researchers to use molecular methods in addition to microscopy methods.
When considering the prevalence of G. duodenalis in different Asian countries, the highest infection rates were found in Tajikistan (one study with a pooled prevalence of 26.4%) and Malaysia (four studies with a pooled prevalence of 26%). By contrast, infection rates in China (four studies with a pooled prevalence of 0.6%) and Saudi Arabia (seven studies with a pooled prevalence of 6.04%) were relatively low. Several environmental and sociodemographic parameters are complicated in the different prevalence rates obtained, including climatic condition, parasite control measures, the Human Development Index and the use of diverse diagnostic methods in different regions. In addition to all these factors, it is necessary to conduct more studies in Asian countries, and those countries that have not conducted any research on this issue should consider doing so; thus, a deeper understanding of the prevalence of G. duodenalis in children in different parts of Asia will be obtained.
Considering the year of publication (Table 2), during 2021 and 2022, the pooled prevalence of G. duodenalis infection decreased. This can be attributed to the increased health knowledge awareness of people.37,38 Furthermore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, because of enhanced personal and social hygiene, most food- and waterborne infectious diseases were relatively reduced.39,40 The results of this meta-analysis study, especially the pooled prevalence rates based on the year of publication, should be interpreted with caution, as a source of heterogeneity has been suggested by meta-regression analysis (Table 1). Factors such as the number of published articles and the sample size of studies each year may play a role in causing heterogeneity.
The current risk factor analyses showed that males and people living in rural areas are at a greater risk of exposure to G. duodenalis, which might be explained by lower personal hygiene scores and more contact with G. duodenalis cyst-contaminated water and vegetables.
The current study has a number of limitations. First, despite our comprehensive search, there was a paucity or absence of data for a number of countries, and many of the available studies had limited sample sizes and a lack of data on sociodemographic and/or risk factors. Moreover, in some countries, only one or two eligible studies were identified, which could compromise somewhat the interpretation of current estimates. Second, the studies included were undertaken during different time periods, with an absence of recent data for some countries, limiting the accuracy of inter-regional comparisons. Third, there was high heterogeneity in this meta-analysis, although we investigated its possible source by performing meta-regression analysis.
In summary, a prevention and control scheme of G. duodenalis in children should receive greater attention from health officials and health policymakers, especially in Asian countries where the prevalence is highest.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all staff of the Department of Medical Parasitology, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences.
Contributor Information
Sara Kalavani, Zoonoses Research Center, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran; Student Research Committee, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran.
Sara Matin, Department of Pediatrics, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom.
Vahid Rahmanian, Department of Public Health, Torbat Jam Faculty of Medical Sciences, Torbat Jam, Iran.
Ahmad Meshkin, Student Committee of Medical Education Development, Education Development Center, Gerash University of Medical Sciences, Gerash, Iran.
Ali Taghipour, Zoonoses Research Center, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran; Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran.
Amir Abdoli, Zoonoses Research Center, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran; Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran.
Authors’ contributions
All the authors contributed to the study design. SK and AT contributed to all parts of the study. SM and AM contributed to the study implementation. VR and AT collaborated in the analysis and interpretation of data. AA and AT collaborated in the manuscript writing and revision. All the authors commented on the drafts of the manuscript and approved the final version of the article.
Funding
This study was supported by Zoonoses Research Center, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran.
Competing interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by Jahrom University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee (ethical approval ID: IR.JUMS.REC.1401.018).
Data availability
All data during study are included in this manuscript and Supplementary Files.
References
- 1. Troeger C, Forouzanfar M, Rao PC, et al. Estimates of global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of diarrhoeal diseases: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet infect Dis. 2017;17(9):909–48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Kotloff KL, Nataro JP, Blackwelder WC, et al. Burden and aetiology of diarrhoeal disease in infants and young children in developing countries (the Global Enteric Multicenter Study, GEMS): A prospective, case-control study. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):209–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Karambizi NU, McMahan CS, Blue CN, et al. Global estimated disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of diarrheal diseases: A systematic analysis of data from 28 years of the global burden of disease study. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0259077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Abdoli A, Maspi N. Commentary: Estimates of global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of diarrhoeal diseases: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Front Med. 2018;5(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2015. World Health Organization; 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Havelaar AH, Kirk MD, Torgerson PR, et al. World Health Organization global estimates and regional comparisons of the burden of foodborne disease in 2010. PLoS Med. 2015;12(12):e1001923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Muhsen K, Levine MM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between Giardia lamblia and endemic pediatric diarrhea in developing countries. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(suppl_4):S271–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Dixon BR. Giardia duodenalis in humans and animals–Transmission and disease. Res Vet Sci. 2021;135:283–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Taghipour A, Sharbatkhori M, Tohidi F, et al. Global prevalence of Giardia duodenalis in cattle: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Vet Med. 2022;203:105632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Adam Rodney D. Giardia duodenalis: Biology and pathogenesis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2021;34(4):e00024–00019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Zahedi A, Ryan U, Rawlings V, et al. Cryptosporidium and giardia in dam water on sheep farms–An important source of transmission? Vet Parasitol. 2020;288:109281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Badri M, Olfatifar M, Karim MR, et al. Global prevalence of intestinal protozoan contamination in vegetables and fruits: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Control. 2022;133:108656. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Eslahi AV, Olfatifar M, Zaki L, et al. Global prevalence of intestinal protozoan parasites among food handlers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Food Control. 2023;145:109466. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Horton B, Bridle H, Alexander C, et al. Giardia duodenalis in the UK: Current knowledge of risk factors and public health implications. Parasitology. 2019;146(4):413–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Gilman RH, Brown KH, Visvesvara GS, et al. Epidemiology and serology of Giardia lamblia in a developing country: Bangladesh. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1985;79(4):469–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Shaima SN, Das SK, Ahmed S, et al. Anthropometric indices of giardia-infected under-five children presenting with moderate-to-severe diarrhea and their healthy community controls: Data from the Global Enteric Multicenter study. Children. 2021;8:1186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Sahagun J, Clavel A, Goni P, et al. Correlation between the presence of symptoms and the Giardia duodenalis genotype. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2008;27(1):81–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Taghipour A, Bahadory S, Badri M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the co-infection of Helicobacter pylori with intestinal parasites: Public health issue or neglected correlation? Int J Environ Health Res. 2022;32(4):808–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Di Prisco MC, Hagel I, Lynch NR, et al. Association between giardiasis and allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1998;81(3):261–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Abedi SH, Fazlzadeh A, Mollalo A, et al. The neglected role of Blastocystis sp. and giardia lamblia in development of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microb Pathog. 2021:105215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Hanevik K, Kristoffersen E, Mørch K, et al. Giardia-specific cellular immune responses in post-giardiasis chronic fatigue syndrome. BMC Immunology. 2017;18(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Painter J, Collier S, Gargano J. Association between Giardia and arthritis or joint pain in a large health insurance cohort: Could it be reactive arthritis? Epidemiol Infect. 2017;145(3):471–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Dougherty M, Bartelt LA. Giardia and growth impairment in children in high-prevalence settings: Consequence or co-incidence? Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2022;35(5):417–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Taghipour A, Ghodsian S, Jabbari M, et al. Global prevalence of intestinal parasitic infections and associated risk factors in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2021;115(5):457–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Rasti S, Hassanzadeh M, Hooshyar H, et al. Intestinal parasitic infections in different groups of immunocompromised patients in Kashan and Qom cities, central Iran. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017;52(6-7):738–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Jeske S, Macedo M, Bianchi T, et al. Molecular characterization of giardia lamblia and risk factors for giardiasis among immunocompromised patients in southern Brazil. Brazil J Biol. 2022;82:e265055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Mussi-Pinhata MM, Nascimento S. Neonatal nosocomial infections. J Pediatr. 2001;77(Suppl 1):S81–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Moya J, Bearer CF, Etzel RA. Children's behavior and physiology and how it affects exposure to environmental contaminants. Pediatrics. 2004;113(Supplement_3):996–1006. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Thébault A, Favennec L, Kooh P, et al. Risk factors for sporadic giardiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microbial Risk Analysis. 2021;17:100158. [Google Scholar]
- 30. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Porritt K, Gomersall J, Lockwood C. JBI's systematic reviews: Study selection and critical appraisal. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(6):47–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Maleki B, Ahmadi N, Olfatifar M, et al. Toxoplasma oocysts in the soil of public places worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2021;115(5):471–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Barati M, KarimiPour A, Rahmanian V, et al. Global prevalence and subtype distribution of blastocystis sp. in rodents, birds, and water supplies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Vet Med. 2022;208:105770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Soares R, Tasca T. Giardiasis: An update review on sensitivity and specificity of methods for laboratorial diagnosis. J Microbiol Methods. 2016;129:98–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. David T, AP W. Markell and Voge's Medical Parasitology. Saunders Elsevier; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 36. Elmi T, Gholami S, Rahimi-Esboei B, et al. Comparison of sensitivity of sucrose gradient, wet mount and formalin–ether in detecting protozoan giardia lamblia in stool specimens of BALB/c mice. J Pure Applied Microbiol. 2017;11:105–9. [Google Scholar]
- 37. Or PP-L, Wong BY-M, Chung JW-Y. To investigate the association between the health literacy and hand hygiene practices of the older adults to help them fight against infectious diseases in Hong Kong. Am J Infect Control. 2020;48(5):485–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Castro-Sánchez E, Chang PW, Vila-Candel R, et al. Health literacy and infectious diseases: Why does it matter? Int J Infect Dis. 2016;43:103–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Donde OO, Atoni E, Muia AW, et al. COVID-19 pandemic: Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) as a critical control measure remains a major challenge in low-income countries. Water Res. 2021;191:116793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Chen C-HS, Cheng T-J. Reduction of influenza and enterovirus infection in Taiwan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2020;20(10):2071–4. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
All data during study are included in this manuscript and Supplementary Files.