Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Jan 23;16(1):25.
doi: 10.1186/s13071-023-05650-2.

The global prevalence of parasites in non-biting flies as vectors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yufeng Liu  1   2   3 , Yuancai Chen  1   2   3 , Nanhao Wang  1   2   3 , Huikai Qin  1   2   3 , Longxian Zhang  1   2   3 , Sumei Zhang  4   5   6
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The global prevalence of parasites in non-biting flies as vectors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yufeng Liu et al. Parasit Vectors. .

Abstract

Background: Non-biting flies such as the house fly (Musca domestica), the Australian sheep blowfly (Lucilia cuprina) and the oriental latrine fly (Chrysomya megacephala) may carry many parasites. In the present study, we performed a systematic overview of the different species of parasites carried by non-biting flies, as well as of isolation methods, different geographical distribution, seasonality and risk assessment.

Methods: A meta-analysis was carried out with the aim to review the global prevalence of parasite transmission in non-biting flies. A total sample size of 28,718 non-biting flies reported in studies worldwide satisfied the predetermined selection criteria and was included in the quantitative analysis.

Results: The global prevalence of parasites in non-biting flies was 42.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.9-53.2%; n = 15,888/28,718), with the highest prevalence found for non-biting flies in Africa (58.3%; 95% CI 47.4-69.3%; n = 9144/13,366). A total of 43% (95% CI 32.1-54.4%; n = 7234/15,282) of house flies (M. domestica), the fly species considered to be the most closely associated with humans and animals, were found with parasites. The prevalence of parasites in the intestine of non-biting flies was 37.1% (95% CI 22.7-51.5%; n = 1045/3817), which was significantly higher than the prevalence of parasites isolated from the body surface (35.1%; 95% CI 20.8-49.4%; n = 1199/3649; P < 0.01). Of the 27 reported parasites, a total of 20 known zoonotic parasites were identified, with an infection rate of 38.1% (95% CI 28.2-48.0%; n = 13,572/28,494).

Conclusions: This study provides a theoretical basis for the public health and ecological significance of parasites transmitted by non-biting flies.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; Non-biting flies; Parasites; Vectors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram on the different stages of the literature search process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Prevalence and geographical distribution of non-biting flies carrying parasites. (This figure was originally designed using ArcGIS 10.4 software. The original vector diagram, imported in ArcGIS, was then adapted from Natural Earth (http://www.naturalearthdata.com). CI, Confidence interval
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Sensitivity analysis of global prevalence of non-biting flies that have been found to transmit parasites
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Funnel plot for the determination of publication bias of the global prevalence estimates of non-biting flies found to transmit parasites
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot of the global prevalence estimates of non-biting flies found to transmit parasites
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot of the prevalence estimates of parasites carried by different non-biting flies
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Forest plot of prevalence estimates for the different identification methods
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Forest plot of prevalence estimates for risk assessment of parasite transmission by non-biting flies
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Forest plot of seasonal prevalence estimates of non-biting flies found to transmit parasites
Fig.10
Fig.10
Forest plot for estimation of prevalence of parasites carried on the body surface and gut of non-biting flies
Fig. 11
Fig. 11
Forest plot of global estimated prevalence of protozoa and helminths carried by non-biting flies
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Patel A, Jenkins M, Rhoden K, Barnes AN. A systematic review of zoonotic enteric parasites carried by flies, cockroaches, and dung beetles. Pathogens. 2022;11:90. doi: 10.3390/pathogens11010090. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ranjbar R, Izadi M, Hafshejani TT, Khamesipour F. Molecular detection and antimicrobial resistance of Klebsiella pneumoniae from house flies (Musca domestica) in kitchens, farms, hospitals and slaughterhouses. J Infect Public Health. 2016;9:499–505. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2015.12.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Park R, Dzialo MC, Spaepen S, Nsabimana D, Gielens K, Devriese H, et al. Microbial communities of the house fly Musca domestica vary with geographical location and habitat. Microbiome. 2019;7:147. doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0748-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adenusi AA, Akinyemi MI, Akinsanya D. Domiciliary cockroaches as carriers of human intestinal parasites in Lagos Metropolis, Southwest Nigeria: implications for public health. J Arthropod Borne Dis. 2018;12:141–151. doi: 10.18502/jad.v12i2.40. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pava-Ripoll M, Pearson RE, Miller AK, Ziobro GC. Detection of foodborne bacterial pathogens from individual filth flies. J Vis Exp. 2015;96:e52372–e52372. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources