Prevalence of bovine paratuberculosis in Chinese cattle populations: A meta-analysis

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4983723/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Prevalence of bovine paratuberculosis in Chinese cattle populations: A meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4983723/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Bovine paratuberculosis is a chronic infectious disease of ruminants primarily caused by Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis. It is essentially a chronic granulomatous enteritis characterized by intractable diarrhea, progressive lethargy, and thickening of the intestinal mucosa with the formation of crumpled pouches that might be related to Crohn's disease in humans. Bovine paratuberculosis not only adversely affects milk production and the quality of dairy products but also poses a significant threat to the economic development of dairy farming and human food security. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis infection among cattle herds in mainland China.

Results

In China, the overall estimated prevalence of Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis infection in cattle was 9% (7728/ 102340). Interestingly, the Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis infection rate in cattle in southern China was estimated to be 2% (6/281), which was significantly lower compared with other regions of China, and the highest infection rate was 12% (1914/16008) in eastern China. Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis infection rates were related to age, average herd size, type of use, season, detection method, and sample type.

Conclusion

Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis infection in cattle was common in China. Therefore, further studies and monitoring of the prevalence of Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis infection are necessary to develop novel intervention strategies. The analysis identified age, average herd size, type of use, and season as significant potential risk factors associated with paratuberculosis pool positivity. In addition, the detection method and sample type can also potentially affect the incidence of detected paratuberculosis.

Cattle

Meta-analysis

Prevalence

Bovine paratuberculosis

Paratuberculosis (PTB) is a chronic infectious disease that mainly affects ruminants and is caused by Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP). [1]. First reported in 1894, the disease, also known as Johne's disease (JD), was discovered by Johne et al. and subsequently classified as a Notifiable Animal Disease by the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) [2]. The main clinical symptoms associated with MAP infection in cattle include persistent diarrhea. In the early stages of infection, animals maintain a normal body temperature and show no significant change in food intake [3]. However, intermittent diarrhea is observed as the disease worsens, accompanied by emaciation, and eventually transforms into refractory diarrhea. Chronic progressive weight loss and chronic or intermittent diarrhea serve as the primary clinical indicators of PTB in cattle[4]. MAP infection in cattle can lead to fatality rates as high as 10%[5]. The disease can spread widely and the feces of infected cattle contain a large number of pathogenic bacteria, which can contaminate pastures and feed[6]. Vaccination against paratuberculosis can lead to positive results in tests for the disease, presenting a challenge for large-scale immunization. Reports indicate that MAP-positive herds incur nearly $100 more in losses per cow than MAP-negative herds [7]. The main economic losses caused by bovine paratuberculosis are premature slaughter, substantially reduced milk production, and weight loss in infected cattle. [8]. The economic impact of paratuberculosis in the USA is considerable, with annual losses exceeding $200 million [9]. Therefore, bovine paratuberculosis has attracted significant attention in recent years. This study provides critical reference data for understanding and analyzing the epidemiological characteristics of bovine PTB in Chinese cattle.

In China, the first case of paratuberculosis was reported in Inner Mongolia in 1953, followed by outbreaks in Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Hebei Provinces, covering nearly all of northern China and resulting in the classification of the PTB as a secondary animal disease. In 1974, two cases of PTB were reported in the reclamation area of Xinjiang Agricultural Division No. 3 Shui Gong Regiment [10]. In 1981, it was reported that approximately 4.4% of the cattle in Heilongjiang Province were infected [11]. In addition, by 2000, 1250 cattle were tested using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in Shanghai, with nine found to be positive [12]. However, with the continuous development of intensive large-scale cattle farms, the rate of PTB positivity has increased annually, reaching up to 56% in Ningxia in 2019 [13], thereby causing huge losses to the farming industry in China. It is necessary to analyze and summarize the overall situation of MAP infection in China.

Given the relatively fragmented nature of epidemiological investigations of bovine PTB, this study adopted a meta-analytic approach to analyze the relevant literature on the epidemiological investigations of bovine PTB in China between 1981 and 2022. Moreover, the statistics related to age, average herd size, type of use, detection method, sample type and season were used to further understand the epidemiological trends and targeted prevention and control of bovine PTB and to provide ideas for future research on the disease. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of MAP antibodies in cattle herds in China and provide ideas for analyzing the prevalence of PTB in cattle worldwide.

Search strategy

Based on the MOOSE guideline [14], a comprehensive search was conducted for studies published between 1981 and 2022 on the epidemiology of bovine PTB in China, using various Chinese and English-language databases, including PubMed, CNKI, VIP, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials, and Wanfang, to identify relevant articles. The search terms included "MAP or PTB or JD or paratuberculosis or bovine paratuberculosis or bovine diarrheal disease," "epidemiology or incidence or prevalence," "Cattle or Bovine or Ruminant," and combinations of these phrases.

Data management

Two investigators independently evaluated the extracted data to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria, and studies that met the requirements were ultimately included. In cases of discrepancies during the screening process, expert consultation and analysis were sought to determine study inclusion. This research involved a statistically controlled primary survey where data were extracted directly from the articles without further verification from the authors. The study also did not include unpublished data.

Exclusion criteria

Publications with the following criteria were excluded:

Studies related to animals other than the cattle;
Sampling conducted outside mainland China or sample size with fewer than 30 cows;
Secondary research;
Undisclosed data sample size.

Inclusion criteria

Publications with the following criteria were included:

Studies related to cattle studies;
The sampling location was in mainland China;
The sample size should be more than 30 cattle;
Studies must have reported any epidemiological data related to MAP or bovine PTB;
Studies with time of data collection, sample size, or denominator for each reported prevalence or rate.

Data extraction

A standardized data collection form was used for data extraction. The information recorded was as follows: first author, year of publication, province of investigation, method of testing (e.g., ELISA, PCR, intradermal paratuberculin tests), total number of cattle tested and number of MAP-positive cattle, feeding stage or age, season of investigation, breed of cattle, sample type and the average herd size.

Analysis of study quality

The quality of the studies was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)[15]. The scoring for each subgroup was determined based on criteria that included stating the study's purpose, detection method, sampling time, sample collection details, and risk factor analysis. Studies scoring 4–5 were considered high quality, those scoring 2–3 were deemed moderate quality, and those scoring 1 or less were categorized as low quality. (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the selection of eligible studies. A total of 62 articles were obtained by screening the database in four processes: "Identification", "Screening", "Eligibility" and "Included".

Statistical analysis

Meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the overall prevalence of bovine PTB infection and assess heterogeneity using Stata 12 software (Stata Corp.College Station, Texas); results, including 95% confidence intervals, were presented in forest plots. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² and Cochrane Q (represented as χ² and P values) statistics, as detailed in Table 2. Subgroup and regression analyses were conducted to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity when statistical disparities were observed In this study, different factors affecting heterogeneity were analyzed separately and established in a multivariate model, which examined the role of factors such as province of investigation, assay method, season of investigation, feeding stage or age, sample type, breed of cattle, and average herd size and potential publication bias was assessed by funnel plots [16]. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [17], ensuring the quality of this review's presentation. Apparent prevalence (AP) was calculated as AP = number of positive tests/total number of tests. True prevalence (TP) was adjusted for test sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) and is detailed in Table 1. TP was computed using the formula TP = (AP + Sp-1)/(Se + Sp-1), with the sensitivity of the ELISA test set at 98.0% and specificity at 99.5%. The Se was 98.0%, and the Sp was 99% for the test of positivity using the PCR method in relevant studies[18, 19]. The Se and Sq of the intradermal test for paratuberculin were 80% and 96%, respectively [20].

Table 1

Included studies of MAP infection in cattle in mainland China.
Study ID	Province	Region	No. examined	No. positive	Apparent Prevalence		Ture Prevalence	95%CI (upper and lower limits)
[26]	Shanghai	East China	1260	26	2%	ELISA	1.6%	(0.01, 0.03)	Cross-sectional	4
[44]	Hunan	Central China	450	21	5%	ELISA	4.3%	(0.03, 0.07)	Cross sectional	4
[45]	Beijing.	North China	8549	791	9%	ELISA	9.0%	(0.09, 0.10)	Cross-sectional	7
[46]	Hebei	North China	4279	25	1%	ELISA	0.1%	(0.00, 0.01)	Cross sectional	4
[47]	Ningxia	Northwest China	1796	77	4%	ELISA	3.9%	(0.03, 0.05)	Cross sectional	5
[43]	Shandong	East China	420	9	2%	PCR	1.5%	(0.01, 0.04)	Cross sectional	5
[48]	Xinjiang	Northwest China	1710	81	5%	ELISA	4.3%	(0.04, 0.06)	Cross sectional	6
[49]	Inner Mongolia	North China	2391	336	14%	ELISA	13.9%	(0.13, 0.15)	Cross sectional	5
[50]	Shandong	East China	736	35	5%	ELISA	4.4%	(0.03, 0.06)	Cross sectional	4
[51]	Shandong	East China	1038	121	12%	ELISA	11.4%	(0.10, 0.14)	Cross sectional	4
[52]	Henan etc	Central China	432	18	4%	ELISA	3.8%	(0.02, 0.06)	Cross sectional	5
[53]	Hebei etc	North China	3600	82	2%	ELISA	1.8%	(0.02, 0.03)	Cross sectional	4
[54]	Xinjiang	Northwest China	695	94	14%	ELISA	13.4%	(0.11, 0.16)	Cross sectional	3
[55]	Xinjiang	Northwest China	80	4	5%	ELISA	4.6%	(0.00, 0.10)	Cross sectional	5
[56]	Xinjiang	Northwest China	114	5	4%	ELISA	4.0%	(0.01, 0.08)	Cross sectional	4
[57]	Xinjiang	Northwest China	1003	76	8%	ELISA	7.3%	(0.06, 0.09)	Cross sectional	6
[37]	Xinjiang	Northwest China	114	5	4%	ELISA	4.0%	(0.01, 0.08)	Cross sectional	4
[58]	Tibet	Southwest China	468	9	2%	ELISA	1.5%	(0.01, 0.03)	Cross sectional	4
[59]	Guizhou	Southwest China	920	275	30%	ELISA	28.3%	(0.27, 0.33)	Cross sectional	5
[60]	Inner Mongolia	North China	2391	336	14%	ELISA	13.9%	(0.13, 0.15)	Cross sectional	5
[61]	Guangxi	South China	281	6	2%	ELISA	1.7%	(0.00, 0.04)	Cross sectional	5
[20]	Shandong	East China	3356	870	26%	ELISA	24.1%	(0.24, 0.27)	Cross sectional	5
[39]	Shandong	East China	3253	579	18%	ELISA	17.7%	(0.16, 0.19)	Cross sectional	6
[62]	Liaoning	Northeast China	860	48	6%	ELISA	5.2%	(0.04, 0.07)	Cross sectional	5
[63]	Shanghai	East China	150	20	13%	ELISA	13.2	(0.08, 0.19)	Cross sectional	5
[64]	Ningxia	Northwest China	189	106	56%	ELISA	55.8%	(0.49, 0.63)	Cross sectional	5
[65]	Heilongjiang	Northeast China	15035	680	5%	ELISA	4.1%	(0.04, 0.05)	Cross sectiona[66]l	5
[67]	Sichuan etc	Southwest China	921	17	2%	ELISA	1.4%	(0.01, 0.03)	Cross sectional	4
[68]	Hunan	Central China	450	21	5%	ELISA	4.3%	(0.03, 0.07)	Cross sectional	4
[69]	Shanghai	East China	430	16	4%	ELISA	3.3	(0.02, 0.06)	Cross sectional	5
[70]	Xinjiang	Northwest China	263	48	18%	ELISA	16.1%	(0.14, 0.23)	Cross sectional	5
[71]	Henan	Central China	480	27	6%	ELISA	5.3%	(0.04, 0.08)	Cross sectional	6
[72]	Gansu	Northwest China	227	13	6%	ELISA	5.3%	(0.03, 0.09)	Cross sectional	4
[73]	Gansu	Northwest China	280	1	1%	ELISA	0.7%	(-0.00, 0.01)	Cross sectional	5
[74]	Beijing	North China	1149	153	13%	ELISA	11.8%	(0.11, 0.15)	Cross sectional	4
[75]	Shanghai	East China	1250	9	1%	ELISA	0.2%	(0.00, 0.01)	Cross sectional	5
[76]	Heilongjiang	Northeast China	6139	351	6%	Intradermal tests of paratuberculin	2.3%	(0.05, 0.06)	Cross sectional	4
[77]	Heilongjiang	Northeast China	91	4	4%	ELISA	4%	(0.00, 0.09)	Cross sectional	5
[66]	Jilin	Northeast China	300	93	31%	ELISA	31.3%	(0.01, 0.06)	Cross sectional	4
[78]	Hebei	North China	233	9	4%	ELISA	3.4%	(0.23, 0.29)	Cross sectional	4
[79]	Shanxi	North China	784	202	26%	ELISA	25.9%		Cross sectional	7
[80]	Xinjiang	Northwest China	965	297	31%	ELISA	31.1%	(0.28, 0.34)	Cross sectional	5
[81]	Liaoning	Northeast China	3070	193	6%	ELISA	5.9%	(0.05, 0.07)	Cross sectional	4
[82]	Xinjiang	Northwest China	201	14	7%	PCR	5.1%	(0.03, 0.10)	Cross sectional	4
[29]	Heilongjiang	Northeast China	900	30	3%	ELISA	2.9%	(0.02, 0.05)	Cross sectional	3
[83]	Beijing	North China	326	72	22%	PPD	23.8%	(0.18, 0.27)	Cross sectional	7
[84]	Yunnan	Southwest China	569	2	0.4%	PCR	0%	(-0.00, 0.01)	Cross sectional	3
[85]	Shandong	East China	900	97	11%	ELISA	3.8%	(0.09, 0.13)	Cross sectional	3
[3]	Henan	Central China	305	13	4%	other	None	(0.02, 0.07)	Cross sectional	5
[86]	Jilin	Northeast China	1244	285	23%	ELISA	23.0%	(0.21, 0.25)	Cross sectional	4
[43]	Shandong	East China	586	83	14%	ELISA	14.0%	(0.11, 0.17)	Cross sectional	5
[87]	Hebei	North China	39	9	23%	ELISA	23.2	(0.10, 0.36)	Cross sectional	4
[88]	Henan	Central China	868	249	29%	Intradermal tests of paratuberculin	32.5%	(0.26, 0.32)	Cross sectional	5
[89]	Henan	Central China	305	13	4%	ELISA	3.9%	(0.02, 0.07)	Cross sectional	5
[90]	Inner Mongolia	North China	354	8	2%	PCR	0.3%	(0.01, 0.04)	Cross sectional	7
[91]	Heilongjiang	North China	358	10	3%	Intradermal tests of paratuberculin	0%	(0.01, 0.05)	Cross sectional	5
[32]	Heilongjiang	North China	924	128	14%	ELISA	13.3%	(0.12, 0.16)	Cross sectional	3
[92]	Beijing	North China	232	7	3%	Intradermal tests of paratuberculin	0%	(0.01, 0.05)	Cross sectional	5
[93]	Hebei	North China	114	18	16%	Intradermal tests of paratuberculin	15.5%	(0.09, 0.22)	Cross sectional	3
[94]	Inner Mongolia	North China	1720	90	5%	PCR	3.4%	(0.04, 0.06)	Cross sectional	5
[95]	Beijing	North China	3235	14	0.4%	Intradermal tests of paratuberculin	0%	(0.00, 0.01) (0.08, 0.10)	Cross sectional	4
ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. PCR = polymerase chain reaction.

Table 2

Pooled prevalence of MAP infection in cattle in mainland China.
		No.	No.	No.	% (95% CI)	Heterogeneity
		studies	tested	positive	% (95% CI)	χ²	P-value	I² (%)
Region	Northeast China	11	30202	1872	13% (8–19)	1179.30	0.000	99.2%
	North China	19	30972	2169	7% (5–9)	1357.72	0.000	98.7%
	Northwest China	16	9302	857	6% (4–8)	497.62	0.000	96.6%
	East China	13	16008	1914	7% (5–9)	903.68	0.000	98.7%
	South China	1	281	6	8% (6–9)	0	0.000	0.0%
	Central China	9	10051	497	6% (3–9)	953.69	0.000	99.1%
	Southwest China	7	5134	413	15% (3–27)	591.73	0.000	99.2%
Age	calf	13	2985	214	7%(9–18)	357.88	0.000	96.9%
	Youth cattle	5	18226	785	2%(1–6)	256.53	0.000	98.4%
	Adult cattle	15	17815	2752	15% (9–18)	1803.34	0.000	99.2%%
	Not Found	46	63314	3977	6% (7–9)	3351.40	0.000	98.7%
Detection method	ELISA	53	91239	6211	7% (8–10)	4170.18	0.000	98.8%
	Intradermal tests of paratuberculin	9	6915	593	9% (5–11)	723.01	0.000	99.0%
	PCR	9	1357	233	17% (14–34)	212.43	0.000	96.2%
	Other	6	2829	691	24%(19–28)	22.01	0.000	81.8%
Average herd size	< 500cattle	12	7138	578	8% (7–13)	406.68	0.000	97.3%
	500–1000 cattle	6	10005	1471	15% (13–30)	694.06	0.000	99.3%
	> 1000 cattle	11	21680	1238	6%(10–18)	728.8	0.000	98.8%
	Not Found	51	63517	4441	7%(7–10)	3867.46	0.000	98.8%
Sample type	Serum	61	100968	7477	7% (8–10)	6010.25	0.000	99.0%
Sample type	Other	11	1372	251	18% (14–33)	220.03	0.000	95.9%
	Beef cattle	13	4617	272	6% (4–9)	206.81	0.000	95.2%
Type of use Season	Dual-purpose cattle	7	3347	117	3% (1–5)	65.87	0.000	90.9%
	Dairy cow	44	84102	6766	8% (10–12)	5464.36	0.000	99.2%
	Not Found	13	10275	573	6% (5–9)	561.1	0.000	97.9%
	Spring Summer	3 4	862 2866	54 124	6%(2–11) 4%(2–6)	12.48 11.53	0.02 0.09	84.0% 74.0%
	Autumn	7	11102	1027	9%(6–12)	146.76	0.000	95.9%
	Winter Not Found	3 50	2121 85389	190 6333	9%(1–22) 7%(9–11)	245.67 5272.21	0.000 0.000	99.2% 99.1%
ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
PCR = Polymerase Chain Reaction.
CI: Confidence interval.
P-value < 0.05 is statistically significant.
Region: Central China: Henan; Eastern China: Anhui, Shandong, Shanghai, Jiangxi, Jiangsu, Zhejiang; Northern China: Beijing, Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Shanxi;
Northeastern China: Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Jilin; Northwestern China: Gansu, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Xinjiang; Southern China: Fujian, Guangxi; Southwestern
China: Guizhou, Sichuan, Tibet, Yunnan.
Age: calves (0–12 MoA/months of age), young cattle (13-24MoA/months of age), adult cattle (> 24MoA/months of age).

Selected studies on PTB in cattle

The initial database search identified 2312 articles, which was narrowed down to 72 after removing duplicates and performing initial screening. Ten articles were further excluded due to small sample sizes (fewer than 30 cattle in 2 articles), inconsistent or incomplete data (4 articles), insufficient detail (1 article provided only prevalence), and irrelevance to cattle (3 articles). Thus, finally, 62 full-text studies were included for quantitative analysis (Table. 1). The data were obtained from 102,340 head of cattle from 24 different provinces in China, including 30,202 in northeastern China, 9,302 in northwestern China, 5,134 in southwestern China, 30,972 in northern China, 16,008 in eastern China, 281 in southern China, and 10,051 in central China. Analysis revealed that Northern China had the highest survey count among the regions. Of the selected articles, 61 were in Chinese, and one was in English (Table 2). A total of 62 papers, with the earliest published in 1981, were included. A cross-sectional analysis of these papers was conducted to calculate the prevalence rates for each period. Based on the established quality criteria, 8 papers were categorized as high quality (4 or 5 points), 47 as medium quality (2 or 3 points), and 6 as low quality (1 point). Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot (Fig. 2), which displayed an asymmetric shape, suggesting potential publication bias.

Figure 2. Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence interval limits for the examination of publication bias.

A funnel plot is a scatter plot based on the effect size of each experimental study as the horizontal coordinate and the sample size as the vertical coordinate for each experimental study. At the top of the funnel plot and enriched towards the center are samples with high learning volume and high accuracy; at the bottom and scattered towards the periphery are samples with small learning volumes and low accuracy.

The prevalence of PTB in various regions of China

The MAP of bovine PTB across the studies ranged from 0.4–56% (Fig. 3, Table 1), while the TP varied from 0–55.8%, showing high heterogeneity (I²=99%, P = 0.000). For instance, Eastern China had the highest pooled prevalence of MAP at 12% (95% CI 5–7, 1914/16008), followed by Northwestern China at 9% (95% CI 4), and Southwestern, Northern, Northeastern, and Central China at 8% (95% CI 3–8, 413/5134), respectively. The pooled prevalence of MAP was 8% (95% CI 3–8, 413/5134), 7% (95% CI 5–9, 2169/30972), 6% (95% CI 8–19, 1872/30202), and 5% (95% CI 3–9, 497/10051) in Southwestern, Northwestern, Northeastern, and Central China, respectively (Table 2). In addition, the provincial subgroups showed that the positivity rates in Chinese provinces ranged from 1 to 31%, with Guizhou and Jilin displaying much higher pooled prevalence rates in comparison to other provinces at 30% (95% CI 27–33, 275/920) and 21% (95% CI 4–24, 506/2468), respectively. Jiangsu, Hebei, Chongqing, and Yunnan had the lowest pooled prevalence rates which were around 1% (Jiangsu 1% (95% CI 1–2,29/2379), Hebei 1% (95% CI 0–3,77/5465), Chongqing 1% (95% CI 0–2,3/400), and Yunnan 1% (95% CI 26–36,2/569)). (Fig. 4).

Figure 3. Forest plot of paratuberculosis pooled prevalence in cattle in China. The length of the horizontal line indicates the 95% confidence interval and the diamond indicates the summed effect.

Figure 4 Map of bovine infection with pooled paratuberculosis in China.

The pattern of squares in the lower-left corner of the graph is sequentially decreasing in prevalence and data deficient. Data Deficient: Indicates that there were no epidemiological surveys of PTB in the province during the statistical year. The labelled data are: Province ((pooled prevalence) 95% Conf. Interval)

Results of the meta-analysis

Age subgroup analysis indicated the highest pooled prevalence of 15% (95%CI 8–18, 2752/17815) in adult cattle (> 24 months of age), compared to 2% (95%CI 1–6, 785/18226) in young cattle (13–24 months of age) and 7% (95%CI 9–18, 214/2985) in calves. The analysis showed that ELISA was the most commonly used MAP assay (7%, 95%CI 8–10, 6211/91239), followed by PCR (17%, 95%CI 14–34, 233/1357) and intradermal paratuberculin tests (9%, 95%CI 5–11, 593 /6915). Additionally, in the subgroup analysis of average herd size, classified into < 500 cows, 500–1000 cows, and > 1000 cows, significantly higher prevalence was observed in the 500–1000 cow group (15%, 95%CI 13–30, 1471/10005) than in the < 500 cow group (8%, 95%CI 7–13, 578/7138) and the > 1000 cow group (6%, 95%CI 10–18, 1238/21680). The use of serum testing (7%, 95%CI 8–10, 7477/100968) was substantially more than other forms of sampling (18%, 95%CI 14–33, 251/1372) in the articles published in this survey. Moreover, analysis of the type of use showed that MAP infection was markedly more frequent in dairy cows (8%, 95%CI 10–12, 6766/84102) than in other varieties, with MAP infection in dual-purpose cattle (milk and beef production) and beef cattle being 3% (95%CI 1–5, 117/3347) and 6% (95%CI 4–9, 272/4617), respectively. Seasonal analysis indicated that MAP infection rates were highest in autumn and winter at 9% (95%CI 6–12, 1027/11102 for autumn; 95%CI 1–22, 190/2121 for winter), compared to lower rates in spring and summer at 6% (95%CI 2–11, 54/862) and 4% (95%CI 2–6, 124/2866), respectively (Table 2).

Although some bias was observed in the collected data, it was reliable and may provide a sound basis for investigating the prevalence of PTB in cattle in China.

This systematic review and meta-analysis screened published literature on bovine PTB in China to evaluate factors influencing disease prevalence and to inform suitable control measures. Bovine PTB is a chronic granulomatous enteritis caused by Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis and is widely prevalent in countries worldwide. The incidence of PTB has rapidly increased in China, with large-scale cattle farms reporting successive outbreaks. In addition, no specific drugs are available to manage the disease. Thus, in June 2022, the Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China classified PTB as a secondary animal disease, which indicated that bovine PTB constitutes an important disease that requires long-term monitoring [21].

This review analyzed 62 studies published between 1981 and 2021, documenting an overall PTB prevalence of 8.0% among 102,340 cattle in China, slightly lower than reports from other countries. PTB is particularly common in countries with developed cattle industries, such as the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, the USA, Russia, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand [22, 23]. For instance, ELISA results in Colombia on asymptomatic cattle showed a 10% positivity rate for anti-MAP antibodies in asymptomatic cattle [24]. The overall apparent prevalence of MAP infection was found to be 6.3% and 18.9% at animal and herd levels, respectively, in cattle in Khartoum State[24]. In another study, Woodbine et al. [25] reported an average individual positivity rate of 7.1% and an average farm positivity rate of 76% in 114 cattle farms using ELISA in southwestern England. However, there are fewer reports of PTB in Asia and the rates vary widely from country to country. Japan has a low prevalence, with about 1,000 of the 500,000 cattle officially examined in Japan diagnosed annually with PTB [8]. The prevalence of PTB in this analysis was 8%, relatively lower than that observed in some European and American countries. For instance, Mongolia has a large cattle industry, and its PTB prevalence is only 0.84% [26].

Due to the complexity of the immune response against pathogens, different diagnostic methods have to be used based on the different infection periods because the suitability and sensitivity of the tests depend on the clinical stage of the disease [27]. In addition, the methods used to detect MAP infection have relative advantages and applications. In China, most studies have used ELISA serological methods, although a few have also used PCR and other microbiological techniques, which is consistent with a Brazilian study [28]. For example, in a study reported by Ferreira et al., an ELISA (PPA) assay was used to test 179 cattle suspected to be positive for PTB. Interestingly, a study by Echeverr et al. reported that while the detection of MAP infection by ELISA was both easy and practical, it should be used only as a screening method to identify various animals sensitized by mycobacteria, while specific diagnosis using "reference standard" methods, such as the isolation of MAP or PCR detection of MAP DNA, should be used for the confirmation [29]. Most of the samples evaluated in the present meta-analysis were sera. Another method used to detect MAP involves the analysis of the feces; however, the MAP levels in feces tend to be very low [30], which may be why serum rather than feces was chosen for MAP testing in most studies.

Sample type significantly influences MAP assay variability, with varying sensitivities observed across different samples, including serum, milk, stool, and cadaver. Serum and milk are predominantly used for (indirect) serological tests (ELISA) detecting antibodies[31], while feces and cadaver [32], in particular gut and associated lymph nodes[7, 33], are tested with molecular biological methods. In this analysis, most of the samples tested for MAP in the included studies were sera, and a meta-analysis showed that the sensitivity of ELISA was significantly higher in serum samples than in necropsy samples [34]. Overall, detecting antibodies using ELISA is considered the method of choice for diagnosing PTB for its speed and cost-effectiveness.

Seasonality significantly influences the PTB positivity rate. The analysis indicates higher PTB prevalence in autumn and winter compared to summer and spring. However, according to a report by Wolf et al. [35], samples collected in the spring and summer had a higher chance of testing positive for MAP than samples collected in the winter. This suggests that seasonal variations in temperature and humidity may affect the viability of MAP bacteria in environmental samples. This could be attributed to the influence of differences in climate between countries. According to Zare et al. [36], both the season and the animals' age also profoundly affect MAP infection. This is consistent with prior studies reported in China on the potential impact of seasonal factors on MAP infection rates.

The study revealed a higher pooled prevalence of PTB in calves (0–12 months of age) and adult cattle (> 24 months of age) at 15% (95% CI: 9–18) compared to young cattle (13–24 months of age) at 4% (95% CI: 1–6). Since newborns have a certain amount of maternal antibodies in their bodies, the interference of maternal antibodies cannot be ruled out by the method of antibody detection [37]. Furthermore, calves may become infected from the mother in utero [8]. Interestingly, several studies have shown that calves are more susceptible to MAP infection [38], which could be through the milk contaminated with MAP, or contact with feces containing MAP, in addition, it has been reported that adult cows and calves are equally susceptible to MAP, which is not quite what we expected. [39]. Unfortunately, only a small fraction of our statistical studies of MAP testing in calves have considered maternal antibody interference. Diagnostic methods and studies should be refined to enhance the accuracy of future PTB prevalence surveys.

In addition, the average herd size is also an important factor in the pooling positivity of bovine PTB, and we find that the positivity is relatively higher for average herd sizes between 500 and 1,000 cattle than for herd sizes that include less than 500 or more than 1,000 cattle. Furthermore, a previous study observed a minimal association between average herd size and infections by mycobacterial species other than MAP [30]. However, Corbett et al. [40] reported that larger herds (> 200 cows) were more likely to be MAP-positive than smaller herds. This observation is consistent with the results of our study, where the prevalence of MAP-positive is higher in medium-sized herds compared to smaller herds.

Dairy cattle had a higher prevalence of PTB (8%, 95%CI: 10–12) compared to dual-purpose cattle (3%, 95%CI: 1–5) and beef cattle (6%, 95%CI: 4–9), possibly due to the limited number of studies on PTB in Chinese dual-purpose cattle (yaks) [41]. In addition, susceptibility to MAP infection can also be genetically influenced. It has been found that worldwide, the incidence of PTB is lower in beef cattle than in dairy cattle [42], which is consistent with the findings of our study. This discrepancy might be attributed to the shorter feeding cycles of beef cattle compared to the longer cycles in dairy cows, potentially increasing infection risks [43]. At the same time, farming practices have an impact on PTB prevalence. In addition, most highland yaks are raised free-range, whereas dairy and beef cattle are usually intensively farmed at greater densities than dual-purpose cattle (yaks). This study analyzed the rates of bovine PTB infection in dairy, dual-purpose cattle, and beef cattle in China; however, due to the small number of studies on bovine PTB in dual-purpose cattle (yaks) in China, the results on yaks may have limitations, although the results nevertheless provide important reference data for the study of dual-purpose cattle PTB infection.

This meta-analysis offers a comprehensive review of PTB infection in Chinese cattle. Several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the 62 papers included were sourced from six large databases, with not all applicable data points contributing to a lack of qualified literature. Second, the small sample sizes in the included studies may have contributed to unstable results in overall estimates and subgroup analyses. In general, differences in the results obtained by different authors may be influenced by factors such as the stage of infection, age of the animal, level of shedding of the organism, whether or not lactation is occurring, antibody concentration, and the sensitivity of different ELISA [40]. Therefore, factors such as organism shedding levels, antibody concentration, and maternal antibody interference should be considered when comparing PTB prevalence results. The lack of comprehensive literature limited this analysis, omitting some potential risk factors, including the failure to exclude maternal antibody interference in calves, which may introduce false positives. Despite these limitations, the meta-analysis sheds light on the overall prevalence and trends of PTB infections in China during the survey period.

In summary, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a pooled estimate of overall MAP positivity of 9% in the Chinese cattle herd during the 1981–2022 period. Moreover, significant PTB positivity variability is observed between regions and provinces. Age, average herd size, type of use, and season were important potential risk factors associated with PTB positivity. In addition, the detection method and sample type can also potentially affect the incidence of detected PTB.

MAP

Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis

PTB

Paratuberculosis

Johne's disease

OIE

(Office International des Epizooties)

ELISA

(enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay)

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Funding

This work was supported by the Natural Science Key Foundation of Anhui Education Department (2023AH051884; KJ2021A0872); Grass Feeding Livestock Resource Utilization and Health Technology Innovation Team (2023AH010061)

Authors' contributions

HY.Z. collected and analysed the data, wrote the main manuscript and made final revisions to the manuscript, and SY. C. analysed the data and refined the manuscript. XL. C. conceptualised and designed the project, directed and validated the data analysis. YP.Q. conducted the project review and editing, funding acquisition, project management and revised and approved the final manuscript. MF. C., W.C. and YC. L made critical suggestions and revised the manuscript. HH. W. provided critical suggestions on the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Natural Science Key Foundation of Anhui Education Department (2023AH051884; KJ2021A0872); The authors also wish to thank the Grass Feeding Livestock Resource Utilization and Health Technology Innovation Team (2023AH010061).The author would like to thank Chen Xuelong and Qi Yanping for writing discussions and proofreading the manuscript.

Fecteau ME. Paratuberculosis in Cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2018;34(1):209–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2017.10.011.
OIE. PARATUBERCULOSIS (Johne's disease). [EB/OL] 2014-05., 2014-05.
Li Z. Investigation of the main pathogens of calf diarrhoea in Henan Province and analysis of two pathogens. bachelor's degree 2019.
Chiodini RJ, Van Kruiningen HJ, Merkal RS. Ruminant paratuberculosis (Johne's disease): the current status and future prospects. Cornell Vet. 1984;74(3):218–62.
Wang Yx, Zhou XC, Gao C, Zhao P, Zhai S, Feng Y, Li Y. Establishment and application of a real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR assay for Mycobacterium bovis paratuberculosis detection. Chin Veterinary J. 2021;57(05):24–8.
Liyuan W. Serological survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Anyang City, China. China Livest Poult Breed Ind. 2018;14(06):17–8.
Cheng Z, Liu M, Wang P, Liu P, Chen M, Zhang J, Liu S, Wang F. Characteristics and Epidemiological Investigation of Paratuberculosis in Dairy Cattle in Tai'an, China. BioMed research international 2020, 2020:3896754.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/3896754
Hasonova L, Pavlik I. Economic impact of paratuberculosis in dairy cattle herds: a review. Veterinární medicína. 2006;51(5):193–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.17221/5539-vetmed.
Groenendaal H, Zagmutt FJ, Patton EA, Wells SJ. Cost-benefit analysis of vaccination against Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis in dairy cattle, given its cross-reactivity with tuberculosis tests. J Dairy Sci. 2015;98(9):6070–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8914.
Libo G, Yunzhi L, Hengyi Z. Bovine paratuberculosis and its control measures. Jilin Anim Husb Veterinary Med 2004(09):13–5 (In Chinese).
Kwan CW, Sun LK, Chunsheng Y, Guangwen W, Yongbin H. Case report of bovine paratuberculosis. Heilongjiang Anim Husb Veterinary Med. 1981;06:36–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.13881/j.cnki.hljxmsy.1981.06.016. (In Chinese).
Yongkang W, Suhua Z, Quanyun S, Jinping Z, Peihong L, Yue S. Serologic survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Shanghai, China. Shanghai Anim Husb Veterinary Newsl 2000(02):24 (In Chinese).
Cheng C, Wenjia W, Zhang K, Xiaojing M, Mengying L, Lihua X. Serologic survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Ningxia area. Chin Veterinary J. 2019;55(02):62–4. (In Chinese).
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2008;336(7650):924–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.
Gong QL, Chen Y, Tian T, Wen X, Li D, Song YH, Wang Q, Du R, Zhang XX. Prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in dairy cattle in China during 2010–2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(6):e0009502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009502.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst reviews. 2015;4(1):1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
Zhang Wq Z, Mj J, Wj, Han X, Zhang Y. Cross-sectional survey of brucellosis in cattle and sheep in a city of Shandong Province, 2023. China Anim Quarantine. 2024;41(02):1–4.
Bao Z, Hongtao Z, Yongpan Z, Hetian Y, Zouran L, Changlong Z. Cross-sectional survey on tuberculosis positivity rate of dairy cows in large-scale farms in a county of Shaanxi Province. China Anim Quarantine. 2017;34(03):21–4.
Han M, Zhang L, Wang J, Ding J. Epidemiological survey of tuberculosis and paratuberculosis in large-scale dairy farms in Shandong Province, China. Chin J Agric. 2014;30(14):10–3.
China MoAaRAotPsRo. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People's Republic of China Announcement No. 573,. In.; 2022-6-23.
Boelaert F, Walravens K, Biront P, Vermeersch JP, Berkvens D, Godfroid J. Prevalence of paratuberculosis (Johne's disease) in the Belgian cattle population. Vet Microbiol. 2000;77(3–4):269–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1135(00)00312-6.
Ssekitoleko J, Ojok L, Omala SK, Mukhtar ME, Eltom KH, Eltayeb ES, Kankya C, Kisekka M, Truyen U, Czerny CP, et al. Molecular and serological survey of paratuberculosis in cattle in selected districts of Western Uganda. BMC Vet Res. 2022;18(1):438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-022-03535-7.
Elmagzoub WA, Adam NM, Idris SM, Mukhtar ME, Abdelaziz SA, Okuni JB, Ojok L, Abd El Wahed A, Eltayeb E, Gameel AA, et al. Seroprevalence of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in Dairy Cattle in Khartoum State, Sudan. Veterinary Sci. 2020;7(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci7040209.
Woodbine KA, Schukken YH, Green LE, Ramirez-Villaescusa A, Mason S, Moore SJ, Bilbao C, Swann N, Medley GF. Seroprevalence and epidemiological characteristics of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis on 114 cattle farms in south west England. Prev Vet Med. 2009;89(1–2):102–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.02.005.
Hu XY, Jin YC, Cao XY, Sun WM, Zhu J, Xu K. Serologic survey of bovine paratuberculosis in Songjiang District, Shanghai, China, 2017–2019. Fujian Anim Husb Veterinary Med. 2021;43(03):1–2.
Whittington RJ, Begg DJ, de Silva K, Purdie AC, Dhand NK, Plain KM. Case definition terminology for paratuberculosis (Johne's disease). BMC Vet Res. 2017;13(1):328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1254-6.
Espeschit IF, Schwarz DGG, Faria ACS, Souza MCC, Paolicchi FA, Juste RA, Carvalho IA, Moreira MAS. Paratuberculosis in Latin America: a systematic review. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2017;49(8):1557–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-017-1385-6.
Jin X, Zhao Z, Huang B, Zhu Z, Liu Y. sELISA of BVDV qRT-PCR and MAP in three large-scale cattle farms in a region of Heilongjiang. Contemp Livest 2022(05):23–5.
Osterstock JB, Fosgate GT, Cohen ND, Derr JN, Roussel AJ. Familial and herd-level associations with paratuberculosis enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay status in beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 2008;86(8):1977–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-0910.
Gupta A, Rani SM, Agrawal P, Gupta PK. Sero-Prevalence of Paratuberculosis (Johne's Disease) in Cattle Population of South-Western Bangalore Using ELISA Kit. Open J Veterinary Med. 2012;2:196–200.
Liu S, Jiang Y, Jiang H, Wang F, He Z. Method for extracting Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis DNA directly from feces and its application. China Livest Poult Infect Dis 1995(05):48–9.
Bakker D, Willemsen PT, van Zijderveld FG. Paratuberculosis recognized as a problem at last: a review. Vet Q. 2000;22(4):200–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2000.9695058.
Collins MTGI, Garry FB, et al. Consensus recommendations on diagnostic testing for the detection of paratuberculosis in cattle in the United States. Am Vet Med Assoc. 2006;299:1912–9.
Wolf R, Barkema HW, De Buck J, Orsel K. Sampling location, herd size, and season influence Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis environmental culture results. J Dairy Sci. 2015;98(1):275–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8676.
Zare Y, Shook GE, Collins MT, Kirkpatrick BW. Evidence of birth seasonality and clustering of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis infection in US dairy herds. Prev Vet Med. 2013;112(3–4):276–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.016.
Sun L, Liu J. Epidemiological investigation on the pathogen of calf diarrhoea in Bazhou region, Xinjiang, China. Heilongjiang Anim Husb Veterinary Med. 2019;24:80–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.13881/j.cnki.hljxmsy.2019.03.0025.
Maruyama F, Kenzaka T, Yamaguchi N, Tani K, Nasu M. Detection of bacteria carrying the stx2 gene by in situ loop-mediated isothermal amplification. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69(8):5023–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.8.5023-5028.2003.
Chen ZY, Zhang Y, Chi L, Li S, Wang K, Xu S. Serological survey of paratuberculosis in large-scale dairy farms in some areas of Shandong Province, China. Chin dairy cow 2022(04):21–5 (In Chinese).http://dx.doi.org/10.19305/j.cnki.11-3009/s.2022.04.006
Corbett CS, Naqvi SA, De Buck J, Kanevets U, Kastelic JP, Barkema HW. Environmental sample characteristics and herd size associated with decreased herd-level prevalence of Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis. J Dairy Sci 2018, 101(9):8092–9http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14661
Mametimin N. Epidemiologic investigation of yak paratuberculosis in South Xinjiang, China. Tarim University (in southern Xinjiang) 2022 (In Chinese).
Roussel AJ. Control of paratuberculosis in beef cattle. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2011;27(3):593–8. vi.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2011.07.005.
Cheng ZL, Liu P, Liu ST. Epidemiological study on three common epidemics in large-scale cattle farms in Shandong region. China Cattle Sci. 2016;42(01):44–8.
Tang X, Wang W, He S, Lin Y, Hu Q, Peng Z, Hu S, Lu X, Wang C. Serological Survey of 4 Diseases in Scale Cattle Farms in Hunan Province, 2019. China Animal Quarantine 2020, 37(10):11–15.
Chen FW, Cao J, Ma C, Zhang X. Epidemiological survey of paratuberculosis in large-scale dairy farms in Beijing area. Chin Veterinary J. 2019;55(09):12–5.
Liu T, Xue ZW, Li L, Xu H, Wang LJ, Zhang XJ, Wang GZ, Ma YB. Epidemiologic survey of paratuberculosis and brucellosis in dairy cattle in Hebei Province, China. Heilongjiang Anim Husb Veterinary Med 2016(05):180–3http://dx.doi.org/10.13881/j.cnki.hljxmsy.2016.0409
Gao H, Kang X. Serologic survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Ningxia area. China Anim Husb Veterinary Digest. 2017;33(10):108–.
Mehmeti B. Epidemiological survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cows on six large-scale cattle farms in Aksu region. master's degree 2021.
Li ZY. Seroepidemiologic survey of major infectious diseases of dairy cattle in Inner Mongolia region. master's degree 2014.
Lin XY. Survey on the prevalence of five major epidemics in large-scale cattle farms in some areas of Shandong Province, China. master's degree. 2015.
Yue R, Zhao D, Zhou X. Isolation and characterization of bovine Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in Shandong Province and its molecular biological properties. In: 2016 Academic Symposium of the Veterinary Pathology Branch of the Chinese Society of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, the Animal Pathophysiology Committee of the Chinese Society of Pathophysiology, and the Experimental Pathology Committee of the Chinese Society for Laboratory Animals: 2016; Haikou, Hainan, China; 2016: 1.
Quan P-h, Zhang Z, Zhao L, Gu Y, Wang X, Han S, Zhou W, Guan P, Xu X. Seroepidemiologic survey of five diseases in beef cattle in some areas of China. Veterinary Guide 2022(01):24–9.
Sun Y, Ma S, Dong H, Wang X. Serologic survey and analysis of bovine paratuberculosis in some provinces and cities of China. Adv Anim Med. 2015;36(11):118–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.16437/j.cnki.1007-5038.2015.11.026.
Zhang Z. Epidemiologic survey of bovine paratuberculosis in some areas of Xinjiang and study of antibody ELISA detection methods. master's degree 2020.
Abdulmigeti M, Shi C, Wu J, Zhu G, Wang T, Hu J. Epidemiologic investigation of bovine paratuberculosis in a cattle farm in South Xinjiang, China. J Tarim Univ. 2019;31(02):1–6.
Zhang W, Sun L, Qin J. Epidemiological investigation of calf diarrhea in Tiemengguan area, Xinjiang, China. Chin Veterinary J. 2020;56(05):49–51.
Mehmetimin N. Epidemiologic investigation of yak paratuberculosis in South Xinjiang, China. master's degree 2022.
Wang X, Han Z, Liu X, Jiang W, Sizhu S, Yaus S, Qiu G, Li J. Seroepidemiologic survey of yak paratuberculosis in some areas of Tibet. Chin dairy cow 2015(14):63–5.
Pi Q, Chan SC, Hong N. Serologic survey of bovine infectious rhinotracheitis, paratuberculosis and neosporosis in Guizhou Province. Adv Anim Med. 2014;35(10):129–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.16437/j.cnki.1007-5038.2014.10.023.
Tian B, Bai YL, Jiang YL, Sun QY. Serologic survey of paratuberculosis in some dairy farms in Inner Mongolia region. Livest Feed Sci. 2014;35(12):21–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.16003/j.cnki.issn1672-5190.2014.12.008.
Tan CP, Zhang YW, Huang FB, Yang YJ. Survey on the prevalence of bovine viral diarrhea virus and Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in some areas of Guangxi, China. Heilongjiang Anim Husb Veterinary Med 2015(02):69–70http://dx.doi.org/10.13881/j.cnki.hljxmsy.2015.0110
He LQ, Wu YP, Guan NP, Ma XW, Yan HB, Chen Y, Deng X, Yuan GH. Serologic survey of bovine paratuberculosis in Liaoning Province, China. Mod Anim Husb Veterinary Med 2019(03):49–52.
Yan ZG, Yang XC, Li KH, Wu XJ, Taotian GS, Wang J. Serologic investigation of paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Chongming District, Shanghai, China. Chin dairy cow 2018(12):29–31http://dx.doi.org/10.19305/j.cnki.11-3009/s.2018.12.008
Cheng C, Wang WJ, Kai Z, Ma XJ, Li MY, Xu LH. Serologic survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Ningxia area. Chin Veterinary J. 2019;55(02):62–4.
Shi QW, Sang XB, Diao CX, Tong L. Serological survey of paratuberculosis in large-scale dairy farms in Heilongjiang province. Chin dairy cow 2020(07):61–4.http://dx.doi.org/10.19305/j.cnki.11-3009/s.2020.07.015
Chi L. Establishment and application of an indirect ELISA method for bovine paratuberculosis multiple recombinant antigen. master's degree 2007.
Liu XY, Wang XQ, Li K, Li JK, Luo XL, Guan JQ, Xie RQ, Song RD, Bao SK. Serologic survey of yak paratuberculosis in Hongyuan, Sichuan and some areas of Qinghai from 2012 to 2014. Chin dairy cow 2015(22):26–9.
Zhang K. Serologic survey and analysis of four major diseases in large-scale cattle farms in Hunan province. master's degrees 2020.
Qu H, Fang GM, Gu X, Li DY, Liu TN, Wang HA. Serologic survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cattle and measures for its prevention and control. China Livest Poult Breed Ind. 2015;11(04):101–3.
Zhang LY, Wu TZ, Ma X, Cao YH. Detection and analysis of paratuberculosis in dairy cows on a large-scale dairy farm in the northern Xinjiang region. Heilongjiang Anim Husb Veterinary Med 2022(14):78–83.http://dx.doi.org/10.13881/j.cnki.hljxmsy.2021.04.0227
Xing BP. Serologic survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Yindu District, Anyang City, Henan Province, China. Chin dairy Ind 2018(04):65–6.http://dx.doi.org/10.16172/j.cnki.114768.2018.04.012
Chang T, Tian L, Xu F, Fan X, Sun S, Fan W. Investigation and isolation and characterization of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Gansu Province, China. Chin Veterinary Sci. 2020;50(07):874–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.16656/j.issn.1673-4696.2020.0123.
He YC, Qian ZB, Li XR, Li S. Serologic survey of common yak diseases in the central region of the northern Qilian Mountains. China Cattle Sci. 2016;42(02):58–60.
Zhao HM, Lou LJ, Sun H, Xiao ZF. A 4-year surveillance survey and analysis of paratuberculosis in dairy cattle. Chin dairy industrys 2020(11):54–6.http://dx.doi.org/10.16172/j.cnki.114768.2020.11.016
Wang YK, Zhang SH, Sun QY, Zhou JP, Liu PH, Shen Y. Serologic survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Shanghai, China. Shanghai Anim Husb Veterinary Newsl 2000(02):24.
Xue R, Li CZ. Survey on the prevalence of paratuberculosis in dairy cows on intensive farms of Beinan Administration of Agricultural Reclamation and preventive and control measures. Livest Veterinary Sci Technol Inform 2020(10):41–2.
Cai WJ, Liang GX, Yu CS, Wang GW, Huang YB. A case report of bovine paratuberculosis. Heilongjiang Anim Husb Veterinary Med. 1981;06:36–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.13881/j.cnki.hljxmsy.1981.06.016.
zhang BG. Serologic survey of three diseases in dairy farms in Langfang area. Heilongjiang Anim Husb Veterinary Med. 2018;16:114–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.13881/j.cnki.hljxmsy.2018.04.0283.
Han YC. Serologic survey of paratuberculosis in dairy cows in Shanxi province. Shanxi Agricultural Sci. 2018;46(11):1929–30.
Wu JY, Yang XY, Li JJ, Tursun G, Meng XX, Bolati H, Jin YH, Wang DF. Analysis of disposal options on dairy cattle paratuberculosis endemic farms. Chin dairy cow 2020(01):28–32http://dx.doi.org/10.19305/j.cnki.11-3009/s.2020.01.007
Chao YW, Cang ZW, Liu J, Hu YQ, Li W, Yang Z, Cheng SJ, Zhang YP, Yu HX. Analysis of Paratuberculosis Antibody Detection in Scale Dairy Farms in Dalian City, 2018–2020. Feed Expo 2021(09):37–9.
Wang YX, Zhou XC, Gao C, Zhao P, Zhai SH, Feng Y, Li Y. Establishment and application of a real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR method for the detection of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in cattle. Chin Veterinary J. 2021;57(05):24–8.
Lin T. Comparison of rapid diagnostic methods for paratuberculosis in large-scale dairy farms. master's degree 2012.
Zhang JC. Pathogen detection in bovine paratuberculosis. master's degree 2008.
Zhang Z. Establishment of a diagnostic method for bovine paratuberculosis and its preliminary application. master's degree 2016.
Jingle YH, Jin YC, Jin ZF. A preliminary report on the indirect hemagglutination test for bovine paratuberculosis. J Yanbian Agricultural Coll 1981(03):1–8.
Liang GX. Report of a sample census on the prevalence of bovine paratuberculous enteritis in Zhangjiakou area. Hebei Anim Husb Veterinary Med 1985(02):17.
Wang XP, Zhou F, Yan L, Zhang Z, Yan YF, Xue YK, Liu XM. Analysis of the prevalence of paratuberculosis in dairy cattle in Henan Province in 2020. Hubei Anim Husb Veterinary Med. 2021;42(05):8–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.16733/j.cnki.issn1007-273x.2021.05.002.
Yan CB, Li Zy, Lv HM, Fang ZD, Peng Z, Yang DX, Ding XF, Tong C, Wang XZ. Investigation and research on the main pathogens of calf diarrhea in Henan province. China Cattle Sci. 2020;46(05):44–8.
Liu ST. Investigation of three epidemics in dairy cows in Jining area. Chin Veterinary J 1996(01):32.
Zhong YM, Zhang JF, Bao YJ, Liu HY. Serologic monitoring of bovine paratuberculosis. Livest Veterinary Sci Technol Inform 2005(05):56.
Zhu CG, Li ZJ, Li HW. Tuberculosis and paratuberculosis-positive cows detected in a dairy farm in Beijing. Chin Anim Quarantine 1999(04):19–20.
Wang JF, Liu LB, Xiang Jl, Liu YL, Shi YP, Yuan WZ, Wang JC. Establishment and application of a rapid method for the visualization of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis RPA-LFS in cattle. Chin Veterinary Sci. 2022;52(04):444–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.16656/j.issn.1673-4696.2022.0063.
Gao GZ, Cui DG, Qin LX. Application of PPA-ELISA for the detection of serum antibody test against paratuberculosis in fattening cattle. Inner Mongolia Veterinarian 1997(01):49–51.
Zhu CG, Li HW, Li ZJ, Zhu JJ. Survey on Seven Diseases of Dairy Cattle in Beijing. Contemp Livest 1997(03):31–2.

No competing interests reported.

PRISMA2009ChecklistMSWord.doc

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Prevalence of bovine paratuberculosis in Chinese cattle populations: A meta-analysis

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusion

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Search strategy

Data management

Exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

Data extraction

Analysis of study quality

Statistical analysis

Results

Selected studies on PTB in cattle

The prevalence of PTB in various regions of China

Results of the meta-analysis

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1