Table 2.
Subgroup meta-analysis of the prevalence of Anaplasma spp. according to the type of animal, Anaplasma spp., detection method and place.
| Characteristics | Factors | N | EF (95%CI) | I-square (%) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of animals | Cattle | 12 | 0.24(0.16, 0.31) | 98.0 | 0.14 |
| Sheep | 14 | 0.39(0.20, 0.58) | 99.0 | ||
| Goat | 10 | 0.39(0.21, 0.57) | 99.0 | ||
| Anaplasma spp. | marginale | 9 | 0.30(0.20, 0.39) | 97.9 | P < .001 |
| Ovis | 14 | 0.44(0.26, 0.61) | 99.3 | ||
| phagocytophilum | 3 | 0.01(0.0, 0.02) | 93.2 | ||
| Anaplasma spp. | 11 | 0.33(0.16, 0.51) | 98.3 | ||
| Method | Microscopy | 14 | 0.35(0.23, 0.47) | 99.1 | P < .001 |
| Nested-PCR | 5 | 0.02(0.001, 0.03) | 41.0 | ||
| PCR-RFLP | 10 | 0.43(0.25, 0.62) | 98.7 | ||
| PCR | 6 | 0.54(0.36, 0.72) | 93.63 | ||
| ELISA | 2 | 0.07(0.03, 0.11) | 99.2 | ||
| Place | Isfahan | 12 | 0.28(0.19, 0.36) | 98.2 | P < .001 |
| Mashhad | 3 | 0.46(0.10, 0.83) | 97.6 | ||
| Gonbad and Mashhad | 5 | 0.45(0.25, 0.66) | 97.6 | ||
| Kerman | 2 | 0.03(0.01, 0.06) | 90.3 | ||
| Ahvaz | 8 | 0.54(0.36, 0.72) | 97.5 | ||
| West Azerbaijan | 2 | 0.05(0.02, 0.11) | 91.8 | ||
| Mazandaran | 3 | 0.37(0.24, 0.50) | 84.2 | ||
| Kurdistan | 2 | 0.07(0.03, 0.11) | 89.7 | ||
| Hamedan | 2 | 0.01(0.001, 0.02) | 98.7 |