Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Veterinary Medicine and Science logoLink to Veterinary Medicine and Science
. 2025 Jun 13;11(4):e70450. doi: 10.1002/vms3.70450

Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of the Prevalence, Species Distribution and Risk Factors of Eimeria spp. in Iranian Livestock

Reza Ataee Disfani 1, Fariba Shadfar 2,3, Mohammad Reza Mohammadi 4, Laya Shamsi 5, Ali Asghari 6, Milad Badri 7, Tahereh Davoodi 8,✉, Farajolah Maleki 2,9,✉
PMCID: PMC13045758  PMID: 40509950

ABSTRACT

Background

Eimeria spp. are protozoan parasites causing coccidiosis, a disease that leads to significant economic losses in livestock such as cattle, water buffalo, sheep and goats. This systematic review and meta‐analysis assessed the prevalence and distribution of Eimeria species in Iranian livestock to better understand the epidemiology of this parasitic infection.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in international and Persian databases for studies published from 1 January 2000 to 7 October 2024. Data on prevalence rates, sample sizes, age groups, genders, seasons, species identification and geographical distribution were analysed using a random‐effects model, with subgroup and meta‐regression analyses to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results.

Results

This systematic review included 25 studies comprising 29 datasets: 12 on sheep, 8 on cattle, 7 on goats and 2 on water buffalo. The overall weighted prevalence of Eimeria spp. in Iranian livestock was 45% (95% CI: 32.9%–57.6%). Species‐specific pooled prevalence rates were highest in water buffalo (92.7%), followed by goats (75.6%), sheep (47%) and cattle (19.1%). Younger animals (under 1 year) showed a higher prevalence (65.2%) compared to older ones (48.8%), with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.03 (95% CI: 1.33–3.08), indicating increased susceptibility in younger livestock. Females exhibited slightly higher infection rates (42.9%) than males (42.7%), and prevalence peaked during spring and winter. A total of 35 Eimeria species were identified across Iranian livestock. Water buffalo had 14 species, with E. bovis and E. zuernii being the most common. Cattle and sheep each had 13 species, with E. bovis and E. zuernii predominating in cattle and E. intricata, E. ahsata, E. ovinoidalis and E. faurei predominating in sheep, while goats had 12, with E. arloingi, E. ninakohlyakimovae and E. christenseni being predominant in goats.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the critical need for effective control and prevention strategies to mitigate the health and economic impacts of Eimeria spp. infections in Iranian livestock.

Keywords: cattle, Eimeria spp, goat, Iran, livestock, prevalence, sheep, water buffalo

‐ Eimeria spp. are protozoan parasites causing coccidiosis, a disease that leads to significant economic losses in livestock such as cattle, water buffalo, sheep and goats.

‐ This systematic review and meta‐analysis assessed the prevalence and distribution of Eimeria species in Iranian livestock to better understand the epidemiology of this parasitic infection.

graphic file with name VMS3-11-e70450-g005.jpg

1. Introduction

Eimeria, a genus of intracellular protozoan parasites, is a significant etiological agent of coccidiosis in a wide range of vertebrates, particularly livestock (Daugschies and Najdrowski 2005; Burrell et al. 2020). Belonging to the phylum Apicomplexa, Eimeria species are highly host‐specific, infecting animals such as cattle, sheep, buffalo and goats, among others (Heitlinger et al. 2014; Noack et al. 2019). These parasites exhibit a direct life cycle and are transmitted through the ingestion of sporulated oocysts present in contaminated feed, water or the environment (Walker et al. 2013; Bangoura et al. 2022). Eimeria spp. infections predominantly affect the gastrointestinal tract, leading to varying degrees of morbidity and mortality depending on the host species, parasite load and immune status of the infected animal (Belete et al. 2016; Chen et al. 2025).

The accurate identification and diagnosis of Eimeria spp. infections are crucial for understanding the epidemiology and devising control strategies. Diagnostic methods typically include microscopic examination of faecal samples, molecular techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and occasionally serological assays (Carvalho et al. 2011; Toaleb et al. 2011; Matsubayashi et al. 2020; Reshi et al. 2024). The pathogenicity of Eimeria species varies widely; some, like E. bovis and E. zuernii in cattle and water buffalo, are highly pathogenic and can lead to severe economic losses due to reduced productivity, treatment costs and animal deaths (Jahanzaib et al. 2017). E. bareillyi has been documented to be the main pathogenic species in water buffalo and is not transmissible to cattle (Dubey et al. 2008; Dubey 2018). Similarly, E. ovinoidalis, E. ninakohlyakimovae, E. ahsata and E. arloingi in sheep and goats are associated with significant health issues, particularly in young animals (Chartier and Paraud 2012; Ali et al. 2025).

The public health significance of Eimeria spp. lies in its indirect impact on food security and agricultural sustainability (Fornace et al. 2013; Coroian et al. 2024). While Eimeria spp. itself is not zoonotic, the economic losses and reduced livestock productivity caused by the parasite can exacerbate food insecurity, especially in regions reliant on livestock farming (Ekawasti et al. 2021; Li et al. 2021; Bangoura et al. 2022).

Livestock, particularly cattle, sheep, water buffalo and goats, are vital to the agricultural economy of many countries, including Iran (Herrero et al. 2013; Hegde 2020). The prevalence and species distribution of Eimeria in these animals have been reported to vary based on geographical, climatic and management factors (Kaur and Kaur 2008; Hashemnia et al. 2015; Mohamaden et al. 2018; Tavassolı et al. 2018). In Iran, livestock farming constitutes a significant sector, providing essential contributions to rural livelihoods, food production and trade. However, there are no comprehensive studies have been conducted to systematically review and analyse the prevalence of Eimeria spp. infections in Iranian livestock, leading to gaps in knowledge that hinder effective control measures.

The primary aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis to investigate the prevalence and distribution of Eimeria species in livestock, including cattle, water buffalo, sheep and goats, in Iran. This approach is particularly relevant given the various data available from this region and the substantial role of livestock in the agricultural sector in Iran. By synthesizing existing research, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the epidemiological landscape of Eimeria spp. infections in Iranian livestock, ultimately contributing to the development of evidence‐based control strategies.

2. Methods

2.1. Ethics

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran (approval no. IR.QUMS.REC.1403.386). The National System of Ethics in Biomedical Research of Iran approved the study on 30 December 2024.

2.2. Study Design

This systematic review and meta‐analysis followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) guidelines (Moher et al. 2015).

2.3. Literature Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies on the prevalence and distribution of Eimeria species in livestock (cattle, water buffalo, sheep and goats) in Iran. International databases, including PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched alongside Persian‐language databases such as the Scientific Information Database (SID) and Magiran. Google Scholar was searched for grey literature. The search covered publications from 1 January 2000 to 7 October 2024. Search terms included combinations of the following keywords: ‘Eimeria’, ‘coccidiosis’, ‘livestock’, ‘cattle’, ‘water buffalo’, ‘sheep’, ‘goats’, ‘prevalence’, ‘epidemiology’, ‘species’ and ‘Iran’. Boolean operators (AND/OR) were used to refine the search. The search strategy was adapted for each database. References from retrieved articles and review papers were screened manually to identify additional relevant studies.

2.4. Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: addressed the prevalence and/or species distribution of Eimeria in Iranian livestock (cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats), published between 1 January 2000 and 7 October 2024, provided clear data on prevalence rates or species identification of Eimeria, utilized standard diagnostic methods for Eimeria spp. identification (such as microscopy, flotation, histopathology or molecular techniques), and published in English or Persian. Exclusion criteria included: studies lacking sufficient data for meta‐analysis (e.g. missing sample size or prevalence rates), case reports, reviews or studies without original data and studies on experimental infections or non‐livestock hosts.

2.5. Data Extraction

Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using a standardized form. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. Extracted data included: author(s), year of publication, time tested, study location (city/county/province), animal species (cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats), sample size, number of positive cases, diagnostic methods employed, identified Eimeria species and their prevalence, and demographic details such as host age, gender and season of sampling.

2.6. Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies (Munn et al. 2014). Criteria included clarity of objectives, appropriateness of sampling methods, representativeness of the sample, confounding factors, subgroups and validity of diagnostic techniques.

2.7. Meta‐Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis (CMA) v3 software, with p‐values under 0.05 deemed statistically significant (Shams et al. 2022). A random‐effects model was employed to assess the prevalence of Eimeria spp. infection in Iranian livestock, calculating pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (Asghari et al. 2023). Subgroup analysis assessed the prevalence of Eimeria spp. infection in Iranian livestock according to location studied, animal species, publication years, age groups, genders and sample sizes. A forest plot illustrated the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals. The heterogeneity was measured using the I 2 index, with values under 25%, 25%–50% and over 50% indicating low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively. Sensitivity analysis examined variations in prevalence when excluding individual studies and meta‐regression was conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, including publication year and sample size. The genetic diversity and species distribution of Eimeria spp. were analysed and reported descriptively.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Quality Assessment

The systematic search identified 3139 studies across both international and Persian‐language databases. Specifically, 2821 studies were retrieved from international databases, while 318 studies were identified from Persian‐language databases. After removing duplicates, 2017 records remained. Screening titles and abstracts excluded 1988 irrelevant studies, leaving 29 full‐text articles assessed for eligibility. Following the exclusion of 4 studies due to quality assessment, insufficient data, lack of standard diagnostic methods or experimental focus, a total of 25 studies/29 datasets were included in the final meta‐analysis (Figure 1). A systematic search yielded 19 articles from international and 14 from Persian databases, resulting in a final set of 25 unique studies after merging and deduplication. The JBI checklist scores for included studies ranged from 4 to 9, with a mean score of 6.2, indicating overall moderate methodological quality. Most studies clearly stated their objectives, employed representative sampling methods and statistical analyses, and used validated diagnostic techniques (Table S1).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart illustrating the process of included studies in this systematic review.

3.2. Study Characteristics

The 25 included studies (29 datasets) were published between 2007 and 2023 and spanned 17 provinces/counties across Iran. Sample sizes ranged from 23 to 500 animals, encompassing a total of 6618 livestock. Animals studied included sheep (n = 12 datasets), cattle (n = 8 datasets), goats (n = 7 datasets) and water buffalo (n = 2 datasets). Diagnostic methods employed included microscopy (27 datasets) and molecular techniques (2 datasets).

3.3. Pooled Prevalence and Subgroup Analysis of Eimeria spp. Infections in Iranian Livestock

The weighted prevalence of Eimeria spp. among Iranian livestock was 45% (95% CI: 32.9%–57.6%), with considerable heterogeneity among studies (I 2 = 98.4%, p < 0.001; Figure 2). The highest pooled prevalence was reported in water buffalo at 92.7% (95% CI: 0.9%–100%), followed by goats at 75.6% (95% CI: 53.8%–89.2%), sheep at 47% (95% CI: 30.7%–63.9%) and cattle at 19.1% (95% CI: 10.5%–32.1%; Figure 3). Figure 4 illustrates the geographical distribution and prevalence of Eimeria spp. in Iranian livestock. Table 1 details the prevalence of Eimeria spp. categorized by publication years, age groups, genders, sample sizes and location studied (Figures S1–S5). In brief, Eimeria spp. prevalence in Iranian livestock was highest among animals ≤ 1‐year‐old, in studies published before 2014, in females, in samples exceeding 300, and in the Ahvaz, Kaleybar, Kerman, Kermanshah, Shiraz, Rudsar and Iranshahr regions (Table 1). Figure S6 shows the association of Eimeria spp. infections with age groups in Iranian livestock.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

The pooled prevalence of Eimeria spp. in Iranian livestock, derived from a random‐effects model with 95% CIs. Red indicates the prevalence from each study, while grey shows the overall weighted prevalence.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

The weighted prevalence of Eimeria spp. in studied animals, derived from a random‐effects model with 95% CIs. Red indicates the prevalence from each study, while grey shows the overall weighted prevalence.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Geographical distribution and prevalence of Eimeria spp. in Iranian livestock.

TABLE 1.

Subgroup analysis of Eimeria spp. prevalence in Iranian livestock by publication year, age group, gender, sample size and location studied.

Subgroup variable Prevalence % (95% CI) Heterogeneity (Q) No. studies df (Q) I 2 (%) p‐value
Publication year
< 2014 55.2 (33.1–75.4) 1211.5 14 13 98.9 < 0.05
> 2014 36 (24.5–49.4) 510.5 15 14 97.2 < 0.05
Age group (year)
≤ 1 65.2 (41.3–83.3) 338.7 12 11 96.7 < 0.05
> 1 48.8 (28.3–69.8) 414.2 12 11 97.3 < 0.05
Gender
Female 42.9 (21.1–68) 352.9 9 8 97.7 < 0.05
Male 42.7 (20.4–68.4) 280.6 9 8 97.1 < 0.05
Sample size
≤ 300 43.6 (29.9–58.4) 727.8 20 19 97.4 < 0.05
> 300 47.1 (25.4–70) 997.1 9 8 99.2 < 0.05
Location
Ahvaz 100 (71.9–100) 0 1 0 0 > 0.05
Alborz 9.1 (5–16.1) 0 1 0 0 > 0.05
Hamedan 20.7 (3.1–67.8) 89.3 2 1 98.9 < 0.05
Iranshahr 45.1 (13.4–81.4) 35.4 3 2 94.3 < 0.05
Kaleybar 100 (63.3–100) 0 1 0 0 > 0.05
Kerman 88.7 (86.5–90.7) 1.3 3 2 0 > 0.05
Kermanshah 74.5 (29.9–95.3) 271.9 3 2 99.3 < 0.05
Malayer 23.2 (18.4–28.8) 0 1 0 0 > 0.05
Rudsar 63 (57.1–68.6) 0 1 0 0 > 0.05
Sanandaj 20.2 (16.8–24.1) 0.3 2 1 0 > 0.05
Shahrood 10 (4.2–21.9) 0 1 0 0 > 0.05
Shiraz 73.3 (65.7–79.8) 0 1 0 0 > 0.05
Tabriz 17.6 (15–20.5) 0.2 2 1 0 > 0.05
Urmia 33.1 (15.9–56.5) 60.9 4 3 95.1 < 0.05
Zabol 39.5 (9–81.2) 100.9 2 1 99 < 0.05
Zahedan 39 (34.3–43.9) 0 1 0 0 > 0.05
Open in a new tab

3.4. Species Distribution of Eimeria Infection in Iranian Livestock

This systematic review identified 35 species of Eimeria in livestock, including E. arloingi, E. parva, E. ninakohlyakimovae, E. pallida, E. faurei, E. christenseni, E. granulosa, E. intricata, E. ovina, E. ahsata, E. ovinoidalis, E. wyomingensis, E. zuernii, E. cylindrica, E. illinoisensis, E. subspherica, E. alabamensis, E. auburnensis, E. canadensis, E. crandallis, E. punctata, E. bovis, E. ellipsoidalis, E. brasiliensis, E. pellita, E. bukidnonensis, E. bakuensis, E. weybridgensis, E. caprina, E. alijevi, E. jolchijevi, E. apsheronica, E. hirci, E. bareillyi and E. ovoidalis. Fourteen Eimeria species were reported in water buffalo, with E. bovis and E. zuernii being the most prevalent. Cattle had 13 reported species, dominated by E. bovis and E. zuernii. Sheep also had 13 species, with E. intricata, E. ahsata, E. ovinoidalis and E. faurei being the most common (Tables 2 and 3). A total of 12 species were reported from goats, with E. arloingi, E. ninakohlyakimovae and E. christenseni being the most prominent (Table 3). Overlapping and species‐specific profiles of Eimeria among Iranian livestock are demonstrated in Table 3.

TABLE 2.

The main characteristics of 25 articles/29 datasets on the prevalence and species distribution of Eimeria spp. in Iranian livestock.

Reference Animal type Location Time tested Total no. Infected no. Prevalence (%) Method Season with a high infection rate Reported species
Razavi and Hassanvand (2007) Goat Shiraz UC 150 110 73.3 MIC — E. arloingi d , E. parva, E. ninakohlyakimovae, E. pallida, E. faurei, E. christenseni, E. granulosa
Yakhchali and Zareei (2008) Sheep Tabriz 2003–2004 240 40 16.7 MIC — E. intricata d , E. faurei, E. ovina, E. parva, E. ahsata, E. pallida
Yakhchali and Golami (2008) Sheep Sanandaj 2003–2004 240 46 19.2 MIC — E. ovinoidalis d , E. faurei, E. ahsata, E. ovina, E. parva, E. intricata
Yakhchali and Gholami (2008) Cattle Sanandaj UC 225 48 21.3 MIC — E. wyomingensis d , E. zuernii, E. cylindrica, E. illinoisensis, E. subspherica, E. alabamensis, E. auburnensis, E. canadensis
Yakhchali and Rezaei (2010) Sheep Malayer 2007–2008 250 58 23.2 MIC Spring E. intricata d , E. faurei, E. ovina, E. parva, E. pallida, E. ahsata, E. ovinoidalis.
Tavassoli and Khoshvaghti (2010) Sheep Urmia 2002–2003 41 33 80.5 MIC — E. parva d , E. ovinoidalis, E. ahsata, E. faurei
Davoudi (2011) Cattle Tabriz 2010–2011 500 90 18 MIC Summer —
Heidari (2011) Sheep Hamedan UC 230 99 43 MIC — E. ovinoidalis d , E. ahsata, E. faurei, E. parva, E. crandallis, E. punctata, E. ovina, E. pallida, E. intricata, E. wyomingensis
Radfar (2011) Goat Kerman 2008–2009 438 391 89.3 MIC Winter E. arloingi d , E. parva, E. ninakohlyakimovae, E. christenseni, E. faurei, Eimeria spp.
Kheirandish (2012) Sheep Kerman 2009–2010 227 197 86.8 MIC Spring E. crandallis d , E. ovina, E. parva, E. ovinoidalis, E. faurei, E. ahsata, E. intricata
Bahrami and Alborzi (2013) Water buffalo Ahvaz a 2011–2012 108 108 100 MIC — E. bovis d , E. canadensis, E. zuernii, E. ellipsoidalis, E. subspherica, E. brasiliensis, E. auburnensis, E. alabamensis, E. pellita, E. illinoisensis, E. bukidnonensis
Hashemnia (2014) Sheep Kermanshah b 2012–2013 410 375 91.5 MIC — E. ahsata d , E. bakuensis, E. crandallis, E. faurei, E. granulosa, E. intricata, E. ovinoidalis, E. pallida, E. parva, E. weybridgensis
Heidari (2014) Cattle Hamedan 2010–2013 400 33 8.2 MIC — E. bovis d , E. zuernii, E. canadensis, E. ellipsodalis, E. alabamensis, E. pellita, E. auburnensis, E. cylindrica, E. bukidnonensis
Kheirandish (2014) Goat Kerman 2010–2011 208 187 89.9 MIC — E. arloingi d , E. christenseni, E. ninakohlyakimovae, E. caprina, E. alijevi, E. jolchijevi, E. apsheronica, E. hirci, E. pallida
Yakhchali and Rahmati (2015) Cattle Kermanshah 2011–2012 307 98 31.9 MIC Spring E. zuernii d , E. bovis, E. cylindrica, E. subspherica, E. ellipsoidalis, E. bukidnonensis, E. wyomingensis
Hashemnia (2015) Goat Kermanshah b 2012–2013 350 292 83.4 MIC — E. arloingi d , E. parva, E. ninakohlyakimovae, E. pallida, E. christenseni, E. caprina, E. hirci, E. faurei, E. granulosa
Mirzaei (2016) Sheep Zabol 2013 420 84 20 MIC — E. ahsata d , E. parva, E. ovinoidalis, E. pallida, E. weybridgensis, E. intricata
Nourollahi‐Fard (2016) Sheep Rudsar 2011–2012 270 170 63 MIC Winter E. crandallis d , E. ahsata, E. ovina, E. parva, E. ovinoidalis
Tavassoli (2018) Water buffalo Urmia UC 317 112 35.3 MIC — E. zuernii d , E. bovis, E. ellipsoidalis, E. bareillyi, E. bukidnonensis, E. ovoidalis, E. cylindrica, E. auburnensis
Adinehbeigi (2018) Cattle Zabol 2015–2016 196 124 63.2 MIC Winter E. bovis d , E. zuernii, E. subspherica, E. brasiliensis, E. ellipsoidalis, E. cylindrical, E. pellita, E. wyomingensis
Bargozideh Toneii (2019) Sheep Zahedan c 2013–2014 395 154 39 MIC — —
Nasiri (2020a) Cattle Alborz 2015–2017 110 10 9.1 MOL — E. bovis d , E. auburnensis, E. zuernii
Nasiri (2020b) Cattle Shahrood 2015–2017 50 5 10 MOL — E. auburnensis d , E. bovis, E. zuernii
Nematollahi (2022) Goat Kaleybar 2017 95 95 100 MIC — —
Zareian (2023a) Sheep Urmia 2020–2021 164 37 22.5 MIC Spring E. intricate d , E. parva, E. faurei, E. ovina, E. ahsata, E. pallida
Zareian (2023b) Goat Urmia 2020–2021 116 11 9.5 MIC Spring E. arloingi d , E. christenseni, E. pallida
Hatam‐Nahavandi (2023a) Cattle Iranshahr 2022 88 12 13.6 MIC — E. auburnensis d , E. ellipsoidalis, E. bukidnonensis
Hatam‐Nahavandi (2023b) Sheep Iranshahr 2022 50 26 52 MIC — E. ahsata d , E. crandallis, E. intricata
Hatam‐Nahavandi (2023c) Goat Iranshahr 2022 23 18 78.2 MIC — E. arloingi d , E. ninakohlyakimovae, E. christenseni
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: MIC, microscopic detection; MOL, molecular detection; UC, unclear.

a

Khuzestan province was represented by Ahvaz county for improved analysis and mapping.

b

For improved analysis and mapping, the counties of Ilam and Kermanshah examined in this study were represented collectively as Kermanshah county.

c

Sistan region was represented by Zahedan county for improved analysis and mapping.

d

Indicates the most common Eimeria species in the study.

TABLE 3.

Distribution and host specificity of Eimeria species in Iranian livestock.

Eimeria species Cattle Sheep Goat Water buffalo Most common species Host specificity
E. arloingi a a (Goat) Goat‐only
E. parva a a Shared (sheep/goat)
E. ninakohlyakimovae a a (Goat) Goat‐only
E. pallida a a Shared (sheep/goat)
E. faurei a a a (Sheep) Shared (sheep/goat)
E. christenseni a a (Goat) Goat‐only
E. granulosa a a Shared (sheep/goat)
E. intricata a a (Sheep) Sheep‐only
E. ovina a Sheep‐only
E. ahsata a a (Sheep) Sheep‐only
E. ovinoidalis a a (Sheep) Sheep‐only
E. wyomingensis a a Shared (cattle/sheep)
E. zuernii a a a (Cattle, buffalo) Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. cylindrica a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. illinoisensis a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. subspherica a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. alabamensis a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. auburnensis a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. canadensis a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. crandallis a Sheep‐only
E. punctata a Sheep‐only
E. bovis a a a (Cattle, buffalo) Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. ellipsoidalis a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. brasiliensis a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. pellita a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. bukidnonensis a a Shared (cattle/buffalo)
E. bakuensis a Sheep‐only
E. weybridgensis a Sheep‐only
E. caprina a Goat‐only
E. alijevi a Goat‐only
E. jolchijevi a Goat‐only
E. apsheronica a Goat‐only
E. hirci a Goat‐only
E. bareillyi a Buffalo‐only
E. ovoidalis a Buffalo‐only
Open in a new tab

Note: Most common column reflects species specifically highlighted as prevalent in the host. Host specificity highlights species found in the specific host group.

a

Presence reported in that host.

3.5. Meta‐Regression and Sensitivity Analysis

Meta‐regression found no significant association between Eimeria spp. prevalence in livestock and the publication year or sample size. Specifically, neither the year of study (regression coefficient: −0.0517, p = 0.31) nor the sample size (regression coefficient: 0.0002, p = 0.93) contributed to variability in infection rates (Figure 5). Sensitivity analysis revealed that excluding individual studies did not substantially alter the pooled prevalence, confirming the robustness of the results (Figure S7).

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

The meta‐regression indicated no statistically significant association between Eimeria spp. infection prevalence in Iranian livestock and the quantitative variables of (A) publication year and (B) sample size.

4. Discussion

This systematic review and meta‐analysis comprehensively evaluated the prevalence, distribution and species diversity of Eimeria spp. infections in livestock across Iran. The findings underscore the substantial burden of Eimeria spp. infections in different livestock species, with notable variations across animal groups. The robust methodological framework and inclusion of 25 studies/29 datasets spanning two decade provide valuable insights into the epidemiological landscape of Eimeria spp. in Iranian livestock.

The pooled prevalence of Eimeria spp. infections in Iranian livestock was 45% (95% CI: 32.9%–57.6%), with significant heterogeneity among studies (I 2 = 98.4%, p < 0.001). This rate is similar to local and global livestock estimates, although there are slight regional differences. For example, a study in Pakistan found a prevalence of 43% in sheep (Khan et al. 2011), which closely aligns with the 47% pooled prevalence observed in our analysis of sheep. In contrast, studies in Egypt and Iraq found Eimeria spp. infections in sheep with a prevalence of 57.7%–72% (Kareem and Yücel 2015; Mohamaden et al. 2018; El‐Alfy et al. 2020), exceeding the pooled prevalence rate reported in this study.

The pooled prevalence of Eimeria spp. in goats was 75.6%, which aligns with a systematic review and meta‐analysis from China that reported a pooled prevalence of 78.7% (95% CI: 68.1%–87.6%) (Diao et al. 2022). In contrast, the global prevalence of this infection in goats estimated at 62.9% (95% CI: 58.6%–67.2%) (Ali et al. 2025).

The pooled prevalence of Eimeria spp. in cattle was 19.1%, consistent with findings from neighbouring regions like Turkey, where infection rates range from 20% to 22.5% due to climatic and husbandry factors (Cicek et al. 2007; Gül et al. 2008). In China, a systematic review and meta‐analysis revealed a prevalence of 4.6%–87.5% (Li et al. 2021), while studies in Pakistan (Rehman et al. 2011) and Germany (Bangoura et al. 2012) found prevalence rates of 47.1% and 95.4% in cattle, respectively.

The significantly high pooled prevalence in water buffalo (92.7%) aligns with the 81.5% (95% CI: 79.8%–83.1%) pooled prevalence found in a 10‐year surveillance of Eimeria spp. in water buffalo in the Mediterranean region (Morgoglione et al. 2020). Water buffalo may have a distinct immune response that increases their susceptibility to Eimeria spp. infections. Additionally, they are often raised in conditions that promote parasite transmission, such as high stocking densities and poor biosecurity measures. Living in wet and humid environments further aids in the survival and spread of Eimeria spp. oocysts. These factors lead to a higher incidence of Eimeria spp. infections in water buffalo compared to other livestock, highlighting their vulnerability and the need for targeted interventions in these herds.

The high prevalence of Eimeria spp. infections, particularly in water buffalo and goats, raises significant concerns for livestock productivity and welfare. Clinical coccidiosis caused by pathogenic Eimeria species can lead to substantial economic losses through reduced weight gain, poor feed conversion and increased morbidity (Step et al. 2002; Jolley and Bardsley 2006; Sudhakara Reddy et al. 2015). The findings underscore the need for targeted control measures, including routine monitoring, effective biosecurity protocols and the strategic use of anticoccidial drugs. Moreover, species‐specific interventions, informed by the diversity and pathogenicity of Eimeria spp., are crucial for mitigating the burden of infections.

The majority of included studies in this systematic review and meta‐analysis relied on microscopy (27 datasets) for Eimeria spp. detection, with only two studies employing molecular methods. The reliance on microscopy likely contributes to variability in prevalence estimates, as molecular methods are more sensitive and can detect subclinical infections (Carvalho et al. 2011). The inclusion of advanced diagnostic techniques in future studies could provide a more accurate estimate of infection rates and species diversity.

This study identified 35 Eimeria species, demonstrating remarkable species diversity in Iranian livestock. Some animals showed overlapping and specific species profiles. For example, E. arloingi, E. ninakohlyakimovae and E. christenseni were predominant in goats, while E. zuernii and E. bovis were common in cattle and water buffalo, and E. intricata, E. ahsata, E. ovinoidalis and E. faurei were prevalent in sheep. The presence of shared species like E. parva, E. pallida, E. granulosa and E. faurei between sheep and goats, E. bovis, E. zuernii, E. canadensis, E. ellipsoidalis, E. subspherica, E. brasiliensis, E. auburnensis, E. alabamensis, E. pellita, E. illinoisensis, E. bukidnonensis and E. cylindrica between cattle and water buffalo, and E. wyomingensis between cattle and sheep suggests potential cross‐species transmission, particularly in mixed grazing systems. No Eimeria species were shared between goats and cattle, goats and water buffalo or sheep and water buffalo.

Of note, E. ovoidalis and E. bareillyi were found exclusively in water buffalo, while E. arloingi, E. ninakohlyakimovae, E. christenseni, E. caprina, E. alijevi, E. jolchijevi, E. apsheronica and E. hirci were reported only in goats. E. ahsata, E. crandallis, E. intricata, E. ovina, E. ovinoidalis, E. punctata, E. bakuensis and E. weybridgensis were solely found in sheep. The presence of host‐specific species underscores the necessity of tailored interventions for different livestock.

Meta‐regression analyses identified no significant associations between infection prevalence and publication year or sample size, indicating that temporal or study‐scale variations were not primary drivers of heterogeneity. The considerable heterogeneity (I 2 = 98.4%) observed in this study underscores the importance of local context in understanding infection dynamics. The included studies demonstrated moderate methodological quality (mean JBI score: 6.2), with robust sampling and diagnostic protocols. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of pooled prevalence estimates. These findings enhance confidence in the reliability of the results and the conclusions drawn.

The weighted prevalence assessment based on publication year indicated that the pooled prevalence of Eimeria spp. infection in Iranian livestock was higher in studies published before 2014 (55.2%) compared to those published after (36%). This decline in prevalence could reflect advancements in management practices, increased awareness of parasitic infections and more effective control measures implemented in the years following 2014. Additionally, the introduction of new diagnostic tools and techniques may have led to more accurate reporting of Eimeria spp. infections, potentially influencing the observed prevalence rates. It is also worth noting that variations in environmental factors, livestock management practices and regional differences within Iran may contribute to discrepancies in infection rates reported in various studies.

Analysis of Eimeria spp. prevalence by age groups showed a higher pooled prevalence in animals under 1 year (65.2%) than in those over 1 year (48.8%), with an OR of 2.03 (95% CI: 1.33–3.08), indicating that younger livestock are more vulnerable. This observation underscores the critical importance of implementing robust management strategies aimed at reducing the exposure of younger animals to Eimeria spp. infections. Eimeria spp. infection was marginally more prevalent in female livestock (42.9%) than in males (42.7%). Among seasons, spring and winter exhibited the highest prevalence of Eimeria spp. infections among Iranian livestock (Table 2). This trend can be attributed to several environmental factors that favour the life cycle of the Eimeria parasites. The milder temperatures and increased moisture during these seasons create an ideal habitat for oocyst survival and proliferation, subsequently leading to higher infection rates among livestock. Furthermore, the management practices during these times may inadvertently contribute to the spread of the infection, as animals are often kept in closer quarters to shield them from the cold, facilitating horizontal transmission. Additionally, nutritional stress during the transition from winter to spring, as forage quality fluctuates, may compromise the immune responses of the animals, making them more susceptible to Eimeria spp. infections.

An investigation of Eimeria spp. infections in Iranian livestock indicated that studies with sample sizes over 300 reported a higher pooled prevalence compared to those with fewer than 300 samples. This trend suggests that larger studies may provide a more accurate representation of the true prevalence of Eimeria spp. in the livestock population. The increased sample size allows for a more comprehensive analysis of various factors, such as geographical distribution, management practices and host susceptibility, all of which can influence infection rates. Furthermore, a higher number of samples can help to mitigate the effects of sampling bias, leading to more reliable conclusions.

Several methodological inconsistencies across the included studies likely contributed to the observed heterogeneity. The included studies used different diagnostic approaches, primarily relying on microscopy/faecal flotation techniques, which vary in sensitivity and specificity, observer skill and oocyst concentration. The lack of standardized diagnostic protocols across studies limits direct comparability of prevalence estimates. Moreover, many studies employed convenience sampling or targeted herds with known parasitic issues. This non‐random selection could result in overestimation or underestimation of true prevalence. In addition, sample sizes varied widely, reducing the statistical power in some datasets. Further, not all studies provided detailed identification of Eimeria species or host characteristics (e.g. age, sex, breed), limiting our ability to perform more refined subgroup analyses. The absence of molecular confirmation in most studies also introduces a risk of species misidentification, particularly for morphologically similar oocysts. Furthermore, geographic distribution analysis revealed a noticeable concentration of studies in the western and north‐western regions of Iran, where research infrastructure is relatively more accessible. This skew limits the generalizability of the pooled prevalence estimates and may fail to capture the full epidemiological landscape of Eimeria infections in Iran.

Overall, the findings of this study highlight the widespread nature of Eimeria spp. infections in Iranian livestock and underscore the need for targeted control measures. The high prevalence in water buffalo and goats is particularly concerning, as these animals are integral to the livelihoods of many rural communities. Interventions such as improved sanitation, rotational grazing and the use of prophylactic anticoccidials could substantially reduce infection rates and associated economic losses. Future studies should adopt a One Health approach, assessing the role of environmental factors, host immunity and management practices in Eimeria spp. transmission dynamics. Moreover, the adoption of PCR‐based and sequencing techniques will enhance species‐level identification, differentiate morphologically similar species and clarify mixed infections. Molecular epidemiology can also reveal genetic diversity and potential drug resistance. In addition, the temporal dynamics of infection, particularly about environmental changes (e.g. temperature, humidity, grazing practices), remain underexplored. Longitudinal studies will help elucidate seasonal trends, reinfection rates and herd‐level persistence.

5. Conclusion

This systematic review highlights the widespread and diverse nature of Eimeria spp. infections in Iranian livestock, with significant implications for animal health and productivity. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to elucidate the temporal dynamics of Eimeria spp. infections, explore the impact of environmental factors and assess the efficacy of intervention strategies. Expanding the use of molecular diagnostic tools can improve species identification and enhance our understanding of host–parasite interactions. The implementation of integrated control measures tailored to local epidemiological contexts will be critical in reducing the burden of Eimeria spp. infections and promoting sustainable livestock production in Iran and beyond.

Author Contributions

Reza Ataee Disfani: investigation, methodology, writing – original draft, conceptualization. Fariba Shadfar: investigation, methodology, writing – original draft. Mohammad Reza Mohammadi: investigation, methodology, writing – original draft. Laya Shamsi: investigation, methodology. Ali Asghari: conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, methodology, writing – review and editing, software, data curation, supervision. Milad Badri: investigation, methodology. Tahereh Davoodi: investigation, methodology, writing – original draft. Farajolah Maleki: investigation, methodology, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Supporting file 1: vms370450‐sup‐0001‐figureS1.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s002.docx (15.6KB, docx)

Supporting file 2: vms370450‐sup‐0002‐figureS2.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s003.docx (15.2KB, docx)

Supporting file 3: vms370450‐sup‐0003‐figureS3.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s008.docx (14.6KB, docx)

Supporting file 4: vms370450‐sup‐0004‐figureS4.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s001.docx (15.6KB, docx)

Supporting file 5: vms370450‐sup‐0005‐figureS5.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s004.docx (16.7KB, docx)

Supporting file 6: vms370450‐sup‐0006‐figureS6.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s005.docx (14.5KB, docx)

Supporting file 7: vms370450‐sup‐0007‐figureS7.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s007.docx (15.3KB, docx)

Supporting file 8: vms370450‐sup‐0008‐tableS1.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s006.docx (19.3KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

The authors have nothing to report.

Disfani, R. A. , Shadfar F., Mohammadi M. R., et al. 2025. “Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of the Prevalence, Species Distribution and Risk Factors of Eimeria spp. in Iranian Livestock.” Veterinary Medicine and Science 11, no. 4: e70450. 10.1002/vms3.70450

Funding: The author received no specific funding for this work.

Contributor Information

Tahereh Davoodi, Email: t.davoodi@iau.ac.ir.

Farajolah Maleki, Email: Fmaleki88@yahoo.com.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available in the online version.

References

  1. Adinehbeigi, K. , Khedri J., Rahmani K., Afshari Moghaddam A., and Hashemi H.. 2018. “Determination and Diversity of Bovine Coccidia in Zabol, East of Iran.” Archives of Razi Institute 73: 45–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ali, E. A. , Ghafar A., Angeles‐Hernandez J. C., et al. 2025. “Global Prevalence of Eimeria Species in Goats: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 11: 1537171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Asghari, A. , Ebrahimi M., Shamsi L., Sadrebazzaz A., and Shams M.. 2023. “Global Molecular Prevalence of Giardia duodenalis in Pigs (Sus domesticus): A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Heliyon 9: e13243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bahrami, S. , and Alborzi A. R.. 2013. “Prevalence of Subclinical Coccidiosis in River Buffalo Calves of Southwest of Iran.” Acta Parasitologica 58: 527–530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bangoura, B. , Bhuiya M. A. I., and Kilpatrick M.. 2022. “ Eimeria Infections in Domestic and Wild Ruminants With Reference to Control Options in Domestic Ruminants.” Parasitology Research 121: 2207–2232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bangoura, B. , Mundt H.‐C., Schmäschke R., Westphal B., and Daugschies A.. 2012. “Prevalence of Eimeria bovis and Eimeria zuernii in German Cattle Herds and Factors Influencing Oocyst Excretion.” Parasitology Research 110: 875–881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Belete, A. , Addis M., and Ayele M.. 2016. “Review on Major Gastrointestinal Parasites That Affect Chickens.” Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 6: 11–21. [Google Scholar]
  8. Burrell, A. , Tomley F. M., Vaughan S., and Marugan‐Hernandez V.. 2020. “Life Cycle Stages, Specific Organelles and Invasion Mechanisms of Eimeria Species.” Parasitology 147: 263–278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carvalho, F. S. , Wenceslau A. A., Teixeira M., Carneiro J. A. M., Melo A. D. B., and Albuquerque G. R.. 2011. “Diagnosis of Eimeria Species Using Traditional and Molecular Methods in Field Studies.” Veterinary Parasitology 176: 95–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chartier, C. , and Paraud C.. 2012. “Coccidiosis Due to Eimeria in Sheep and Goats, a Review.” Small Ruminant Research 103: 84–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, P. , Rehman M. U., He Y., et al. 2025. “Exploring the Interplay Between Eimeria Spp. Infection and the Host: Understanding the Dynamics of Gut Barrier Function.” Veterinary Quarterly 45: 1–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cicek, H. , Sevimli F., Kozan, Köse M., Eser M., and Doğan N.. 2007. “Prevalence of Coccidia in Beef Cattle in Western Turkey.” Parasitology Research 101: 1239–1243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Coroian, M. , Fábián‐Ravasz T.‐Z., Dobrin P. R., and Györke A.. 2024. “Occurrence of Eimeria Spp. and Intestinal Helminths in Free‐Range Chickens From Northwest and Central Romania.” Animals 14: 563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Daugschies, A. , and Najdrowski M.. 2005. “Eimeriosis in Cattle: Current Understanding.” Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series B 52: 417–427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Davoudi, Y. , Garedaghi Y., Nourmohammadzadeh F., Eftekhari Z., and Safarmashaei S.. 2011. “Study on Prevalence Rate of Coccidiosis in Diarrheic Calves in East‐Azerbaijan Province.” Advances in Environmental Biology 5: 1562–1563. [Google Scholar]
  16. Diao, N.‐C. , Zhao B., Chen Y., et al. 2022. “Prevalence of Eimeria Spp. Among Goats in China: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 12: 806085. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dubey, J. P. 2018. “A Review of Coccidiosis in Water Buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis).” Veterinary Parasitology 256: 50–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dubey, J. P. , Wouda W., and Muskens J.. 2008. “Fatal Intestinal Coccidiosis in a Three‐Week‐Old Buffalo Calf (Bubalus bubalus).” Journal of Parasitology 94: 1289–1294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ekawasti, F. , Nurcahyo R. W., Firdausy L. W., et al. 2021. “Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With Eimeria Species Infection in Cattle of Different Geographical Regions of Indonesia.” Veterinary World 14: 2339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. El‐Alfy, E.‐S. , Abbas I., Al‐Kappany Y., Al‐Araby M., Abu‐Elwafa S., and Dubey J. P.. 2020. “Prevalence of Eimeria Species in Sheep (Ovis aries) From Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt.” Journal of Parasitic Diseases 44: 559–573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fornace, K. M. , Clark E. L., Macdonald S. E., et al. 2013. “Occurrence of Eimeria Species Parasites on Small‐Scale Commercial Chicken Farms in Africa and Indication of Economic Profitability.” PLoS ONE 8: e84254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gül, A. , Ciçek M., and Kilinç O.. 2008. “Prevalence of Eimeria Spp., Cryptosporidium Spp. and Giardia Spp. in Calves in the Van Province.” Turkish Journal of Parasitology 32: 202–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hashemnia, M. , Rezaei F., and Chalechale A.. 2015. “Prevalence, Intensity, and Pathological Lesions of Eimeria Infection in Goats in Western Iran.” Comparative Clinical Pathology 24: 805–810. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hashemnia, M. , Rezaei F., Chalechale A., Kakaei S., and Gheichivand S.. 2014. “Prevalence and Intensity of Eimeria Infection in Sheep in Western Iran.” International Journal of Livestock Research 4, no. 1: 107. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hatam‐Nahavandi, K. , Carmena D., Rezaeian M., et al. 2023. “Gastrointestinal Parasites of Domestic Mammalian Hosts in Southeastern Iran.” Veterinary Sciences 10: 261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hegde, N. G. 2020. “Goat Development: An Opportunity to Strengthen Rural Economy in Asia and Africa.” Asian Journal of Research in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 18. [Google Scholar]
  27. Heidari, H. 2011. “Identification of Eimeria Species in Sheep of Hamedan Suburb.” Veterinary Research 66, no. 2: 165–168. [Google Scholar]
  28. Heidari, H. , Sadeghi‐Dehkordi Z., Moayedi R., and Gharekhani J.. 2014. “Occurrence and Diversity of Eimeria Species in Cattle in Hamedan Province, Iran.” Veterinary Medicine 59: 271–275. [Google Scholar]
  29. Heitlinger, E. , Spork S., Lucius R., and Dieterich C.. 2014. “The Genome of Eimeria falciformis‐Reduction and Specialization in a Single Host Apicomplexan Parasite.” BMC Genomics 15: 1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Herrero, M. , Grace D., Njuki J., et al. 2013. “The Roles of Livestock in Developing Countries.” Animal 7: 3–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Jahanzaib, M. S. , Avais M., Khan M. S., et al. 2017. “Prevalence and Risk Factors of Coccidiosis in Buffaloes and Cattle From Ravi River Region, Lahore, Pakistan.” Buffalo Bill 36: 427–438. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jolley, W. R. , and Bardsley K. D.. 2006. “Ruminant Coccidiosis.” Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 22: 613–621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kareem, S. I. , and Yücel Ş. Y.. 2015. “Prevalence of Eimeria Species in Sheep in Sulaimaniya Province, Iraq.” Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 3: 317–322. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaur, H. , and Kaur D.. 2008. “Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Domestic Animals of Patiala and Its Adjoining Areas.” Journal of Veterinary Parasitology 22: 25–28. [Google Scholar]
  35. Khan, M. N. , Rehman T., Iqbal Z., Sajid M. S., Ahmad M., and Riaz M.. 2011. “Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Eimeria in Sheep of Punjab, Pakistan.” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 5: 334–338. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kheirandish, R. , Nourollahi‐Fard S. R., and Eslah E.. 2012. “The Prevalence and Pathology of Ovine Coccidiosis in Kerman, Iran.” Eurasian Journal of Veterinary Sciences 28: 194–198. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kheirandish, R. , Nourollahi‐Fard S. R., and Yadegari Z.. 2014. “Prevalence and Pathology of Coccidiosis in Goats in Southeastern Iran.” Journal of Parasitic Diseases 38: 27–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, D.‐L. , Gong Q.‐L., Ge G.‐Y., et al. 2021. “Prevalence and Infection Risk Factors of Bovine Eimeria in China: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Parasite 28: 61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Matsubayashi, M. , Shibahara T., Matsuo T., et al. 2020. “Morphological and Molecular Identification of Eimeria Spp. in Breeding Chicken Farms of Japan.” Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 82: 516–519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mirzaei, M. , and Dahmardeh E.. 2016. “The Prevalence of Eimeria Species in Sheep in Zabol City, Iran.” Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research 11: 98–105. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mohamaden, W. I. , Sallam N. H., and Abouelhassan E. M.. 2018. “Prevalence of Eimeria Species Among Sheep and Goats in Suez Governorate, Egypt.” International Journal of Veterinary Science and Medicine 6: 65–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Moher, D. , Shamseer L., Clarke M., et al. 2015. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis Protocols (PRISMA‐P) 2015 Statement.” Systematic Reviews 4: 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Morgoglione, M. E. , Bosco A., Maurelli M. P., et al. 2020. “A 10‐Year Surveillance of Eimeria Spp. in Cattle and Buffaloes in a Mediterranean Area.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Munn, Z. , Moola S., Riitano D., and Lisy K.. 2014. “The Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool for Use in Systematic Reviews Addressing Questions of Prevalence.” International Journal of Health Policy and Management 3: 123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Nasiri, V. , Paykari H., Jameie F., and Karimi G.. 2020. “Isolation, Characterization and Molecular Identification of Eimeria Spp. in Young Calves.” Veterinary Research & Biological Products 33: 31–40. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nematollahi, A. , Shahbazi P., Mardomi H., and Mollazadeh A.. 2022. “Survey on Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Wild Goats (Capra aegagrus) of Arasbaran National Park.” Veterinary Clinical Pathology 16: 61. [Google Scholar]
  47. Noack, S. , Chapman H. D., and Selzer P. M.. 2019. “Anticoccidial Drugs of the Livestock Industry.” Parasitology Research 118: 2009–2026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Nourollahi‐Fard, S. R. , Khedri J., Ghashghaei O., Mohammadyari N., and Sharifi H.. 2016. “The Prevalence of Ovine Eimeria Infection in Rudsar, North of Iran (2011–2012).” Journal of Parasitic Diseases 40: 954–957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Omid, B. T. , Saadati D., Nabavi R., Moradi M., and Rasekh M.. 2019. “A Survey of Gastrointestinal Parasitic Fauna of Baluchi Sheep in Sistan Region and Its Mapping Using the Geographic Information System (GIS).” Veterinary Clinical Pathology 13: 163–176. [Google Scholar]
  50. Radfar, M. H. , Sakhaee E., Shamsaddini Bafti M., and Haj Mohammadi H.. 2011. “Study on Gastrointestinal Parasitic Infections of Raeini Goats.” Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research, Shiraz University 12, no. 1: 34. [Google Scholar]
  51. Razavi, S. M. , and Hassanvand A.. 2007. “A Survey on Prevalence of Different Eimeria Species in Goats in Shiraz Suburbs.” Journal of Veterinary Research 61, no. 4: 373–376. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rehman, T. U. , Khan M. N., Sajid M. S., et al. 2011. “Epidemiology of Eimeria and Associated Risk Factors in Cattle of District Toba Tek Singh, Pakistan.” Parasitology Research 108: 1171–1177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Reshi, A. A. , Tak H., Bulbul K. H., Wani Z. A., and Bhat A. H.. 2024. “Challenges and Insights in Morphological Identification of Eimeria Species in Cattle: A Comprehensive Study and Identification Key.” Journal of Parasitic Diseases 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Shams, M. , Shamsi L., Asghari A., et al. 2022. “Molecular Epidemiology, Species Distribution, and Zoonotic Importance of the Neglected Meat‐Borne Pathogen Sarcocystis Spp. in Cattle (Bos taurus): A Global Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Acta Parasitologica 67: 1055–1072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Step, D. L. , Streeter R. N., and Kirkpatrick J. G.. 2002. “Bovine Coccidiosis: A Review.” Bovine Practice 126–135. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sudhakara Reddy, B. , Sivajothi S., and Rayulu V. C.. 2015. “Clinical Coccidiosis in Adult Cattle.” Journal of Parasitic Diseases 39: 557–559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Tavasoli, M. , and Koushvaghti H.. 2010. “Helminthes and Coccidia Infection of Wild Sheep (Ovis ammon Orintalis) in Kabodan Island of National Park of Urmia Lake, Iran.” VRF 1: 1. [Google Scholar]
  58. Tavassolı, M. , Dalır‐naghadeh B., Valıpour S., and Maghsoudlo M.. 2018. “Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Parasites in Water Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) Calves Raised With Cattle in Smallholder Farming System in the Northwest of Iran.” Acta Veterinaria Eurasia 44: 6–11. [Google Scholar]
  59. Toaleb, N. I. , El‐Moghazy F. M., and Hassan S. E.. 2011. “Diagnosis of Eimeriosis in Cattle by ELISA Using Partially Purified Antigen.” World Applied Sciences Journal 12: 33–38. [Google Scholar]
  60. Walker, R. A. , Ferguson D. J. P., Miller C. M. D., and Smith N. C.. 2013. “Sex and Eimeria: A Molecular Perspective.” Parasitology 140: 1701–1717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Yakhchali, M. , and Gholami E.. 2008. “Prevalence of Eimeria and Cryptosporidium Spp. in Cattle of Sanandaj City (Kurdistan Province), Iran.” Pajouhesh and Sazandegi 87: 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yakhchali, M. , and Golami E.. 2008. “ Eimeria Infection (Coccidia: Eimeriidae) in Sheep of Different Age Groups in Sanandaj City, Iran.” Veterinary Archives 78: 57. [Google Scholar]
  63. Yakhchali, M. , and Rahmati R. A.. 2015. “ Eimeria Infection in Dairy Cattle of Industrial Farms in Kangavar Suburban of Kermanshah Province, Iran.” Journal of Veterinary Research 70, no. 3: 263–271. [Google Scholar]
  64. Yakhchali, M. , and Rezaei A. A.. 2010. “The Prevalence and Intensity of Eimeria Spp. Infection in Sheep of Malayer Suburb, Iran.” Archives of Razi Institute 65, no. 1. [Google Scholar]
  65. Yakhchali, M. , and Zareei M. R.. 2008. “Prevalence of Eimeria Infection in Sheep of Tabriz Suburb, Iran.” Journal of Veterinary Research Shiraz University 9, no. 3: 24. [Google Scholar]
  66. Zareian, S. , Najarnezhad V., and Malekifard F.. 2023. “Study on Frequency of Eimeria Species Among Sheep and Goats of Urmia City, Iran.” Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research 19: 95–103. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting file 1: vms370450‐sup‐0001‐figureS1.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s002.docx (15.6KB, docx)

Supporting file 2: vms370450‐sup‐0002‐figureS2.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s003.docx (15.2KB, docx)

Supporting file 3: vms370450‐sup‐0003‐figureS3.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s008.docx (14.6KB, docx)

Supporting file 4: vms370450‐sup‐0004‐figureS4.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s001.docx (15.6KB, docx)

Supporting file 5: vms370450‐sup‐0005‐figureS5.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s004.docx (16.7KB, docx)

Supporting file 6: vms370450‐sup‐0006‐figureS6.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s005.docx (14.5KB, docx)

Supporting file 7: vms370450‐sup‐0007‐figureS7.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s007.docx (15.3KB, docx)

Supporting file 8: vms370450‐sup‐0008‐tableS1.docx

VMS3-11-e70450-s006.docx (19.3KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available in the online version.

Articles from Veterinary Medicine and Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES