Next Article in Journal
Pathophysiological Correlations Between SARS-CoV-2 and Arrhythmogenesis: A Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Occurrence of Acute Otitis and Sinusitis in Patients Hospitalized for Influenza
 
 
GERMS is published by MDPI from Volume 15 Issue 4 (2025). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with the former publisher Infection Science Forum.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Probable Vector of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus; Hyalomma aegyptium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Hamid Sadeghi
1,
Saeideh Gholamzadeh Khoei
1,*,
Sara Shahsavari
1,
Masoumeh Aslanimehr
1,
Farhad Nikkhahi
1,
Abouzar Babaei
1,
Nematollah Gheibi
2 and
Behzad Bizhani
3
1
Medical Microbiology Research Center, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Bahonar Blvd, postal code: 3419759811, Qazvin, Iran
2
Cellular and Molecular Research Center, Research Institute for Prevention of Non Communicable Diseases, Shahid Bahonar Blvd, postal code: 3419759811, Qazvin, Iran
3
Department of Infectious Diseases, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Bahonar Blvd, postal code: 3419759811, Qazvin, Iran
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
GERMS 2024, 14(1), 45-62; https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1417
Submission received: 13 September 2023 / Revised: 31 January 2024 / Accepted: 17 February 2024 / Published: 31 March 2024

Abstract

Introduction: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is the widest emerging severe viral tick-borne disease affecting humans. Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) circulates by routine enzootic tick-vertebrate hosts-tick transmission cycles. We aimed to evaluate the molecular prevalence of CCHFV in ticks on a global scale. Methods: A systematic procedure was used to perform this review and meta-analysis using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2000 through 12 April 2023. Of the 2310 papers identified, 43 articles met the inclusion criteria for this study. Results: The overall prevalence of CCHFV was 4.0% (95%CI: 2.7–6.0%) in ticks on the global scale, with heterogeneity (I2=96.387; p=0.0001). The genus Hyalommawas shown as the most frequent tick infected with CCHFV 5.4% (95%CI: 3.3–8.7%). We found that the pooled prevalence of CCHFV was higher in Hyalomma aegyptium 27.6% (95%CI: 22.7–33.2%). The pooled prevalence was higher in Asia 5.1% (95%CI: 3.3–7.7%), and Spain 21.0% (95%CI: 3.4–66.9). The locations with annual rainfall of 401-1000 mm 6.1% (95%CI: 2.6–13.5%) and latitude of 31-40° 6.0% (95%CI: 4.1–8.9%) were associated with the greatest pooled prevalence of CCHFV in ticks. Conclusions: Surveillance of CCHFV in ticks will give a better comprehension for the future implementation of public health interventions. The question of whether Hyalomma aegyptium is a plausible or certain vector should be the subject of further investigation.

Introduction

The Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) belongs to the genus Orthonairovirusof the family Nairoviridae [1]. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a severe tick-borne illness, emerged as public health concern in endemic countries [2]. CCHFV is widespread in Africa, parts of Asia, the Middle East, and Southeastern Europe [3,4]. CCHF virus is associated with severe hemorrhagic fever with high mortality from 5 to 50%. Epidemiologically, CCHFV has been reported as potentially endemic or endemic in about 50 countries [5]. The virus spreads in wildlife in an enzootic tick-vertebrate-tick pattern, and human infection occurs both by tick bites and direct contact with tissues or blood from viremic animals or patients [6]. Asymptomatic CCHF hosts, such as domestic and wild animals in the endemic CCHF transitional cycle, are necessary for tick feeding via transstadial, transovarian, and venereal transmission, which helps disseminate the virus to new tick colonies [7,8]. In the living cycle of CCHFV, ticks may take action not only as vectors, but also as reservoirs [9,10]. Goats and sheep are known as possible farm animal indicators for the circulation of CCHFV [9]Molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) have been a major advance in the scientific world for the detection of CCHFV [11]. In addition, detection of virus by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is necessary to confirm a real circulation of CCHFV [12]. Various studies have been conducted to estimate the prevalence of CCHFV in several areas of the world at different times. However, evaluating the prevalence of tick infection with CCHFV globally seems necessary. This study specifies the pooled molecular prevalence of CCHFV in ticks using RT-PCR on a global scale with regard to types of ticks, continents, countries, annual rainfall and latitude.

Methods

Search strategy

In order to assess the global epidemiological state of CCHFV in ticks, we perfeormed a systematic review by searching online English-language literature. We used the PRISMA recommendations (available at: http://www.prisma-statement.org/) for this. Using the databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, an extensive literature search was conducted to find pertinent works published between 1 January 2000 and 12 April 2023. In order to find publications that used RT-PCR to estimate the prevalence of CCHFV in ticks, an extensive search was conducted. In the next step, special keywords or phrases including CCHF, RT-PCR, and ticks were selected alone or in combination with “OR” and/or “AND” operators. The searches were re-run just before the final analyses to retrieve the most recent eligible studies for inclusion. Published papers with epidemiologic results were selected. All selected papers were imported in Endnote version X9 (Clarivate Analytics, USA). English language and ticks were considered as the limitations of language and study group respectively.

Eligibility criteria

The following criteria were satisfied for a paper to be considered for additional analysis: (a) studies on single CCHFV-infected ticks; (b) studies that used RT-PCR to assess the prevalence of CCHFV based on tick species; (c) studies reporting the number of positive samples; (d) full-text publications published in the English language without regard to location; and (e) studies designing cross-sectional studies. Papers meeting the following criteria were excluded: papers reporting the pooled prevalence of CCHFV in ticks, review papers, posters, clinical trials, cohort studies, letters to the editor, case report articles, meeting abstracts, congress, case-control studies, empirical research, perplexing studies, unpublished studies, and brief communication papers. To incorporate all relevant and potential papers, references to systematic reviews and meta-analyses were checked. To estimate the actual overall prevalence of CCHFV in different types of ticks, after pooling the results of the studies, types of ticks with a sample size of <30 ticks were not considered.

Data extraction

Two researchers contributed to the data elicitation (HS and SGK) separately from included investigations through a pretested and modulated format provided in Microsoft Excel. The following specifications of each associated study were elicited: first author, year of publication, country, type of samples, number of sample size, number of positive samples, type of study, prevalence of CCHFV, and method. Based on tick species, continent, country, and genus, subgroup analyses were carried out to investigate heterogeneity for analysis. Disagreements between researchers were resolved by the decision of a third reviewer (MA).

Quality assessment

The included papers’ quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [13]. The quality was calculated using 10 points for each paper according to subject selection (0–5 points), comparability of subjects (0–2 points) and outcome (0–3 points). A total score of 0–4, 5–6, 7–8, and 9–10 points was labelled Unsatisfactory Studies, Satisfactory Studies, Good Studies and Very Good Studies, respectively [14].

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (CMA version 3). Forest plot, funnel plot, tables, and figures were used to describe the original papers. A random-effects model was used to account for potential heterogeneity among studies. The pooled prevalence of CCHFV in ticks was computed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity index (I2statistics) was employed to compute heterogeneity among the papers. I2values of <25%, 50% and <75% were known as low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively [15]. Using Egger regression test-based funnel plots, we evaluated the publication bias. An evaluation of the effect of the year of publication on prevalence was conducted using a meta-regression analysis. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Literature search, selection and data extraction

An electronic database search produced a total of 2310 published papers. A total of 105 full-text articles were chosen for eligibility evaluation. Sixty-two full-text papers were excluded with reasons including paper’s reported pooled prevalence, reviews, unclear data, and not relevant data. Ultimately, 43 studies were included in the meta-analysis according to critical assessment criteria (Figure 1, Supplementary Table 1).
The included studies that utilized molecular techniques based on RT-PCR methods in individual ticks. Included papers displayed high heterogeneity based on I2test (I2=96.387%, p<0.0001), which is suggestive to use random effects model.

Pooled prevalence

The assessed global pooled molecular prevalence for CCHFV in ticks was 4.0% (95%CI: 2.7–6.0%)—Figure 2.
Hyalomma was the most abundant genus of ticks infected with CCHFV (5.4%; 95%CI: 3.3–8.7%)—Figure 3.
Concerning the species of the ticks, the top three evaluated pooled prevalences were as follows: 27.6% (95%CI: 22.7–33.2%) for Hyalomma aegyptium, 20.2% (95%CI: 17.2–23.6%) for Hyalomma lusitanicum and 11.3% (95%CI: 8.8–14.5%)—Supplementary Figure 1.
The analysis based on continents showed that the infection was most prevalent in Asia 5.1% (95%CI: 3.3–7.8%), Europe 3.8% (95%CI: 1.5–9.2%) and Africa 1.0% (95%CI: 0.3–3.3%)—Supplementary Figure 2.
A subgroup analysis based on country showed some differences in CCHFV prevalence. The evaluated pooled prevalence of CCHFV was highest in Spain (21%; 95%CI: 3.4–66.9%), however, it was based only on one study. It was 8.9% (95%CI: 3.5–21.0%) in Turkey, and 5.3% (95%CI: 3.4–8.1%) in Iran—Supplementary Figure 3.
Furthermore, the infection was more prevalent in regions with Annual rainfall 401-1000 mm 6.1% (95%CI: 2.6–13.5%) and Latitude 31-40° 6.0% (95%CI: 4.1-8.9%)—Supplementary Figure 4 and Figure 5.
According to the papers included in the analysis, molecular prevalence of CCHFV infection in individual ticks has been documented in 11 countries. The largest number of studies was performed in Iran (25 studies), followed by Turkey (5 studies).

Publication bias

The funnel plot (Supplementary Figure 6) shows evidence of publication bias.
Egger’s test for a regression intercept gave a p-value of 0.0005, indicating evidence of publication bias (Supplementary Figure 7).
Meta-regression analysis revealed no evidence of heterogeneity between studies regarding the year of publication (p=0.055)—Supplementary Figure 8.
Evaluation of study quality indicated that of 43 studies, 6 had a total score of 0-4 points (Unsatisfactory Studies), 33 had a total score of 5-6 points (Satisfactory Studies), and 4 had a total score of 7-8 points (Good Studies). There were no Very Good Studies among the ones included. (Supplementary Table 2).

Discussion

Similar to leishmaniosis, cockroaches, pediculosis, scabies, and myiasis, tick-borne diseases endanger human health [16,17]. Like other tick-borne zoonotic pathogens, CCHFV circulates in the enzootic pattern of tick–vertebrate–tick transmission, which indicates that the epidemiology of CCHF is extremely complicated [18]. In other words, surveillance of CCHFV in ticks could yield useful information concerning evaluating the risk of exposure in humans, recognizing the natural host, and forecasting future CCHV outbreaks [19], especially in places that are CCHF endemic [20].
Diverse ticks of invertebrate and various vertebrate animals are involved in the CCHF life cycle [21]. Because of the importance of the geographical diversity of tick species in various areas [22], we evaluated the pooled molecular prevalence of CCHFV globally in ticks. Subgroup analysis was carried out to explore heterogeneity based on genus of ticks, tick species, continent, country, annual rainfall, and latitude. Based on epidemiological studies, CCHFV is transmitted more by Hyalomma genus ticks [23]. The general occurrence of CCHF in Asia, Europe, and Africa parallels the distribution of Hyalomma ticks worldwide [9]. In this study Hyalomma was found the most abundant genus of ticks infected with CCHFV (5.4%; 95%CI: 3.3–8.7%). We included studies that reported the presence of CCHFV in individual ticks on the account that it is a precious approach to obtain real prevalence of the CCHFV in ticks compared to reporting presence of CCHFV in pooled ticks [24]. Findings show molecular prevalence of CCHFV in ticks being documented in 43 papers from 11 countries. CCHF is usually seen in Asia, the Middle East, Southeast Europe, and Africa. No related published papers were included for America, and Australia. The current systematic review presents the global pooled prevalence of CCHFV (4.0%; 95%CI: 2.7–6.0%), with heterogeneity (I2=96.387; p<0.0001) in ticks based on RT-PCR. Results of this study also show that infection with CCHFV in ticks is limited to the three continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa), which is related to our type of study. The prevalence ranged widely from 0.1% to 51.5% for various studies that satisfied the current review’s inclusion requirements. These changes are associated with the geographical factors in various parts of the world [25]. The global CCHFV infection in ticks exhibited a decreasing trend [26]. Our findings also show signs of a decline in CCHFV infection in ticks throughout the roughly ten years covered by published studies. (Supplementary Figure 9).
Ticks of the genus Hyalomma, markedly Hyalomma marginatum, are believed to be the main vectors of CCHFV [27]. It is indicated thatHyalomma aegyptium potentially has a cryptic transmission cycle with a key role in preserving the virus in the wild world [28]. Therefore, this approach to systematic meta-analysis review looks to summarize the role ofHyalomma aegyptium as a probable vector of CCHFV. Although the studies are limited on assessing the prevalence of CCHFV on Hyalomma aegyptiumin nature, this meta-analysis revealed that Hyalomma aegyptium is the most frequent species infected with CCHFV (27.6%; 95%CI: 22.7–33.2%). This makes and highlights the query of whether or not Hyalomma aegyptiumplays a part in the natural transmission dynamics of CCHFV.

Strengths and limitations

RT-PCR is used in this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the global prevalence of CCHFV in individual ticks. The strengths of this meta-analysis strengths include a thorough literature search, precise methodology, clearly defined exclusion and inclusion criteria, and quality assessment by two independent reviewers. However, some limitations exist due to the nature of the investigations. One of the limitations of this study was evaluating the prevalence of CCHFV in individual not in pooled ticks.

Conclusions

The meta-analysis provided here gives us an adequate comprehension of the global spread of CCHFV among ticks. Even the largest investigation is never able to rule out a very small effect, an important effect can only ever be shown to be negligible, not non-existent. Accordingly, further research should focus on Hyalomma aegyptium to answer this query of whether Hyalomma aegyptium is a probable or a certain vector.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/article/xxx/s1, Table S1: Characteristics of the included studies, Table S2: Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale of each included studies, Figure S1: Pooled prevalence of CCHFV in ticks based on species, Figure S2: Forest plots of the meta-analysis for the global prevalence of CCHFV in ticks, Figure S3: Pooled prevalence of CCHFV in ticks based on country, Figure S4: Pooled prevalence of CCHFV in ticks based on annual rainfall, Figure S5: Pooled prevalence of CCHFV in ticks based on latitude, Figure S6: Funnel plot for the prevalence of CCHFV worldwide, Figure S7: Egger regression intercept for the prevalence of CCHFV in ticks, Figure S8: A meta-regression graph for the prevalence of CCHFV in included studies based on the year of publication, Figure S9: Forest plots for random-effects meta-analysis of the prevalence of CCHFV in ticks over time.

Author Contributions

SGK and HS performed the literature review and search. SGK, HS and SS were involved in conceptualization, methodology, writing- reviewing and editing, methodology, investigation, studies analysis, data curation, and writing and preparing the original draft. SGK and HS undertook the statistical analysis. MA, FN, AB, NG and BB did the validation, and reviewing. SGK conducted supervision and project administration. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Deputy of Research and Technology, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran, grant number 401000230.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to our colleagues in the Medical Microbiology Research Center of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences.

Conflicts of interest

All authors—none to declare.

References

  1. Sultankulova, K.T.; Shynybekova, G.O.; Kozhabergenov, N.S.; et al. The prevalence and genetic variants of the CCHF virus circulating among ticks in the southern regions of Kazakhstan. Pathogens. 2022, 11, 841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sadeghi, H.; Nikkhahi, F.; Maleki, M.R.; Simiari, A.; Bakht, M.; Gholamzadeh Khoei, S. Status of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus in ticks in Iran: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Microb Pathog. 2023, 106153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ergönül, O. Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006, 6, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Whitehouse, C.A. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. Antiviral Res. 2004, 64, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fatemian, Z.; Salehzadeh, A.; Sedaghat, M.M.; Telmadarraiy, Z.; Hanafi-Bojd, A.A.; Zahirnia, A.H. Hard tick (Acari: Ixodidae) species of livestock and their seasonal activity in Boyer-Ahmad and Dena cities of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Southwest of Iran. Vet World. 2018, 11, 1357–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bente, D.A.; Forrester, N.L.; Watts, D.M.; McAuley, A.J.; Whitehouse, C.A.; Bray, M. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever: History, epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical syndrome and genetic diversity. Antiviral Res. 2013, 100, 159–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Spengler, J.R.; Bergeron, É.; Rollin, P.E. Seroepidemiological studies of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus in domestic and wild animals. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016, 10, e0004210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gargili, A.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Spengler, J.R.; Lukashev, A.; Nuttall, P.A.; Bente, D.A. The role of ticks in the maintenance and transmission of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus: A review of published field and laboratory studies. Antiviral Res. 2017, 144, 93–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hoogstraal, H. The epidemiology of tick-borne Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever in Asia, Europe, and Africa. J Med Entomol. 1979, 15, 307–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Spengler, J.R.; Estrada-Peña, A.; Garrison, A.R.; et al. A chronological review of experimental infection studies of the role of wild animals and livestock in the maintenance and transmission of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus. Antiviral Res. 2016, 135, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Kalvatchev, N.; Christova, I. One step RT-PCR for rapid detection of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus. Biotechnol Biotechnolog Equip. 2008, 22, 864–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sas, M.A.; Vina-Rodriguez, A.; Mertens, M.; et al. A one-step multiplex real-time RT-PCR for the universal detection of all currently known CCHFV genotypes. J Virol Methods. 2018, 255, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Herzog, R.; Álvarez-Pasquin, M.J.; Díaz, C.; Del Barrio, J.L.; Estrada, J.M.; Gil, Á. Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013, 13, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Quek, T.T.; Tam, W.W.; Tran, B.X.; et al. The Global prevalence of anxiety among medical students: A meta-analysis. Inf J Environ Res Public Health. 2019, 16, 2735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gholamian-Shahabad, M.R.; Azizi, K.; Asgari, Q.; Kalantari, M.; Moemenbellah-Fard, M.D. Sandflies species composition, activity, and natural infection with Leishmania, parasite identity in lesion isolates of cutaneous leishmaniasis, central Iran. J Parasit Dis. 2018, 42, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Davari, B.; Hassanvand, A.E.; Nasirian, H.; Ghiasian, S.A.; Salehzadeh, A.; Nazari, M. Comparison of cockroach fungal contamination in the clinical and non-clinical environments from Iran. J Entomol Acarol Res. 2017, 49, 6758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Whitehouse, C.A. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. Antiviral Res. 2004, 64, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Keikha, M. The discrepancy of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever-related tick vectors: An urgent need for boosted surveillance. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022, 81, 104412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Keikha, M.J.I.J.o.S. The impact of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever on travelers: The urgency of surveillance-Correspondence. 2022; 106, 106902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Papa, A.; Dalla, V.; Papadimitriou, E.; Kartalis, G.; Antoniadis, A. Emergence of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever in Greece. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010, 16, 843–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kabir, M.; Mondal, M.; Eliyas, M.; et al. An epidemiological survey on investigation of tick infestation in cattle at Chittagong District, Bangladesh. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2011, 5, 346–352. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ergönül, Ö. Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006, 6, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tekin, S.; Bursali, A.; Mutluay, N.; Keskin, A.; Dundar, E. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus in various ixodid tick species from a highly endemic area. Vet Parasitol 2012, 186, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ince, Y.; Yasa, C.; Metin, M.; et al. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever infections reported by ProMED. Int J Infect Dis. 2014, 26, 44–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Nasirian, H. Ticks infected with Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV): A decision approach systematic review and meta-analysis regarding their role as vectors. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2022, 47, 102309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Labuda, M.; Nuttall, P. Viruses transmitted by ticks. In: Bowman AS, Nuttall PA, eds. Ticks: Biology, disease and control. Cambridge University Press; 2008, 253-280. [CrossRef]
  28. Kar, S.; Rodriguez, S.E.; Akyildiz, G.; et al. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus in tortoises and Hyalomma aegyptium ticks in East Thrace, Turkey: Potential of a cryptic transmission cycle. Parasit Vectors. 2020, 13, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Germs 14 00045 g001
Figure 2. The assessed global pooled molecular prevalence for CCHFV in ticks.
Figure 2. The assessed global pooled molecular prevalence for CCHFV in ticks.
Germs 14 00045 g002
Figure 3. Pooled prevalence of CCHFV in ticks based on genus.
Figure 3. Pooled prevalence of CCHFV in ticks based on genus.
Germs 14 00045 g003

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sadeghi, H.; Khoei, S.G.; Shahsavari, S.; Aslanimehr, M.; Nikkhahi, F.; Babaei, A.; Gheibi, N.; Bizhani, B. Probable Vector of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus; Hyalomma aegyptium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. GERMS 2024, 14, 45-62. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1417

AMA Style

Sadeghi H, Khoei SG, Shahsavari S, Aslanimehr M, Nikkhahi F, Babaei A, Gheibi N, Bizhani B. Probable Vector of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus; Hyalomma aegyptium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. GERMS. 2024; 14(1):45-62. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1417

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sadeghi, Hamid, Saeideh Gholamzadeh Khoei, Sara Shahsavari, Masoumeh Aslanimehr, Farhad Nikkhahi, Abouzar Babaei, Nematollah Gheibi, and Behzad Bizhani. 2024. "Probable Vector of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus; Hyalomma aegyptium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" GERMS 14, no. 1: 45-62. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1417

APA Style

Sadeghi, H., Khoei, S. G., Shahsavari, S., Aslanimehr, M., Nikkhahi, F., Babaei, A., Gheibi, N., & Bizhani, B. (2024). Probable Vector of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Virus; Hyalomma aegyptium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. GERMS, 14(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2024.1417

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop