Table 1.
Risk factors analysis to Brucella canis seroprevalence in 193 dogs from the Patos municipality, State of Paraíba, in the Northeast region of Brazil.
| Variables | Sample size | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
| Seropositive (%) | P | Odds ratio | IC 95% | P | ||
| Owner education | ||||||
| Illiterate | 2 | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| 1st– 8th grade | 82 | 4 (4.9) | ||||
| Secondary | 67 | 1 (1.5) | ||||
| Higher | 42 | 1 (2.4) | 0.666 | |||
| Sex of the dogs | ||||||
| Female | 83 | 2 (2.4) | ||||
| Male | 110 | 4 (3.6) | 0.701 | |||
| Age (months) | ||||||
| 3 – 6 | 14 | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| 6 – 12 | 46 | 2 (4.3) | ||||
| 12 – 24 | 44 | 2 (4.5) | ||||
| > 24 | 89 | 2 (2.2) | 0.669 | |||
| Breed | ||||||
| Mixed | 110 | 3 (2.7) | ||||
| Pure | 83 | 3 (3.6) | 1.000 | |||
| Access to street | ||||||
| No | 140 | 5 (3.6) | ||||
| Yes | 53 | 1 (1.9) | 1.000 | |||
| Food | ||||||
| Commercial | 71 | 2 (2.8) | ||||
| Prepared at home | 64 | 1 (1.6) | ||||
| Scraps | 58 | 3 (5.2) | 0.510 | |||
| Contact with other dogs | ||||||
| No | 93 | 4 (4.3) | ||||
| Yes | 100 | 2 (2.0) | 0.431 | |||
| Contact with wildlife | ||||||
| No | 181 | 6 (3.3) | ||||
| Yes | 12 | 0 (0.0) | 1.000 | |||
| Dog’s environment | ||||||
| Soil | 106 | 4 (3.8) | ||||
| Cement | 87 | 2 (2.3) | 0.692 | |||
| Cleaning of the dog’s environment | ||||||
| Yes | 169 | 3 (1.8) | 1 | |||
| No | 24 | 3 (12.5) | 0.026 | 7.91 | 1.5 – 41.72 | 0.015 |
| Abortion destination | ||||||
| Throw away | 189 | 6 (3.2) | ||||
| Burying/burning | 4 | 0 (0.0) | 1.000 | |||
| Walk with the dogs* | ||||||
| No | 72 | 4 (5.6) | ||||
| Yes | 121 | 2 (1.7) | 0.198 | |||
| Contact with ponds | ||||||
| No | 164 | 6 (3.7) | ||||
| Yes | 29 | 0 (0.0) | 0,594 | |||
Variables selected and used in the multivariate analysis