SARS-CoV-2 natural infection in animals: a systematic review of studies and case reports and series
| dc.contributor.author | D. Katterine Bonilla‐Aldana | |
| dc.contributor.author | Alejandra García-Barco | |
| dc.contributor.author | S. Daniela Jiménez-Diaz | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jorge Luis Bonilla-Aldana | |
| dc.contributor.author | María C. Cardona-Trujillo | |
| dc.contributor.author | Fausto Muñoz‐Lara | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lysien I. Zambrano | |
| dc.contributor.author | Luis Andrés Salas-Matta | |
| dc.contributor.author | Alfonso J. Rodríguez‐Morales | |
| dc.coverage.spatial | Bolivia | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-03-22T21:03:30Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-03-22T21:03:30Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
| dc.description | Citaciones: 24 | |
| dc.description.abstract | COVID-19 pandemic is essentially a zoonotic disease. In this context, early in 2020, transmission from humans to certain animals began reporting; the number of studies has grown since. To estimate the pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection in animals and to determine differences in prevalence between countries, years, animal types and diagnostic methods (RT-PCR or serological tests). A systematic literature review with meta-analysis using eight databases. Observational studies were included but analyzed separately. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for prevalence studies and case series. After the screening, 65 reports were selected for full-text assessment and included for qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 24 reports assessed SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR, combining a total of 321,785 animals, yielding a pooled prevalence of 12.3% (95% CI 11.6%-13.0%). Also, a total of 17 studies additionally assessed serological response against SARS-CoV-2, including nine by ELISA, four by PRTN, one by MIA, one by immunochromatography (rest, two studies, the method was not specified), combining a total of 5319 animals, yielding a pooled prevalence of 29.4% (95% CI 22.9%-35.9%). A considerable proportion of animals resulted infected by SARS-CoV-2, ranking minks among the highest value, followed by dogs and cats. Further studies in other animals are required to define the extent and importance of natural infection due to SARS-CoV-2. These findings have multiple implications for public human and animal health. One Health approach in this context is critical for prevention and control. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/01652176.2021.1970280 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1080/01652176.2021.1970280 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://andeanlibrary.org/handle/123456789/85678 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | Taylor & Francis | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Veterinary Quarterly | |
| dc.source | Fundación Universitaria Autónoma De Las Américas | |
| dc.subject | Meta-analysis | |
| dc.subject | Serology | |
| dc.subject | Confidence interval | |
| dc.subject | Context (archaeology) | |
| dc.subject | Medicine | |
| dc.subject | Observational study | |
| dc.subject | Pandemic | |
| dc.subject | Epidemiology | |
| dc.subject | Transmission (telecommunications) | |
| dc.subject | Natural history | |
| dc.title | SARS-CoV-2 natural infection in animals: a systematic review of studies and case reports and series | |
| dc.type | review |