Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T08:51:09.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Validating efficacy of Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii, Carissa edulis, and Ximenia americana in treating Taenia solium cysticercosis in pigs: A randomized controlled trial

Subject: Life Science and Biomedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2021

Mwemezi L. Kabululu*
Affiliation:
Tanzania Livestock Research Institute (TALIRI) – Uyole, Mbeya, Tanzania
Mathias E. Boa
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher, Morogoro, Tanzania
*
*Corresponding author. Email: address-mwemezie@gmail.com

Abstract

Ethnoveterinary use of plants dates back to ancient times. This study aimed to validate purported efficacy of Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii and a concoction of Carissa edulis and Ximenia americana in treating Taenia solium cysticercosis in pigs. Twenty-four infected pigs were randomly allocated to T1, T2, and T0 groups, each with eight pigs. Each T1 pig was provided with 8 g of S. hildebrandtii root powder, whereas each T2 pig was given 8 g of the concoction. T0 was a control. The pigs were slaughtered 16 weeks post treatment and carcase dissections were performed to establish cyst numbers. T1 cyst numbers were significantly lower than those of T0 (p = .004) and T2 (p = .013). No difference was observed between T2 and T0. This study validated efficacy of S. hildebrandtii but not of X. americana and C. edulis. Further studies are necessary for validation and documentation of plants of ethnoveterinary importance.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flow of study units during the experimental trial.

Figure 1

Table 1. Taenia solium cyst numbers in selected organs and muscle groups of 21 slaughtered pigs, 8 from T1 group treated with Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii, 6 of T2 treated with a concoction of Carissa edulis and Ximenia Americana, and 7 which served as a control.

Figure 2

Table 2. Mean, minimum and maximum numbers of Taenia solium cysts of 21 slaughtered pigs, 8 from T1 group treated with Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii, 6 of T2 group treated with a concoction of Carissa edulis and Ximenia americana, and 7 pigs of a control group.

Figure 3

Figure 2. A box plot showing total cyst counts of 21 pigs treated with Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii (8 pigs), a concoction of Carissa edulis and Ximenia americana (7 pigs), and a control group (6 pigs).

Reviewing editor:  Martin Michaelis University of Kent, School of Biosciences, Canterbury, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CT2 7NJ
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: Validating efficacy of Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii, Carissa edulis and Ximenia americana in treating Taenia solium cysticercosis in pigs: A randomized controlled trial

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: Interesting manuscript with promising results on the efficacy of Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii. Overall, the paper is well written and documented. It would have been nice to include a Oxfendazole treatment group (positive control)

Some major remarks pertain to the description of the methods and on the results and their interpretations.

M&M:

L90: Please provide some details on how the pigs were kept during the study (housing, group/individual, feeding, …)

L91: can you give more details on the weight of the pigs? They were all given the same dose of herbal extractions while the body weight may have been different.

Results:

L132: “…specific effect of the herbal materials”: what could be these specific effects?

L141-2: Very strange that no degenerated cysts were found in muscles and organs (other than the brain) of animals in the T1 group. It often takes more than 16 weeks for cysticerci to completely disappear after treatment. (same remark for L170-4 in Discussion)

Other comments:

L30: “infected” naturally infected

Fig 1: correct “21 pigs not included because due to …”

L184-5: “… counts, but the reduction was not statistically significant.”: if the reduction was not significant, it means that there is no reduction. Do also observe that the cyst numbers cannot be the same in all groups.

Presentation

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 3.4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
3 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
3 out of 5

Review 2: Validating efficacy of Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii, Carissa edulis and Ximenia americana in treating Taenia solium cysticercosis in pigs: A randomized controlled trial

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: Title: Should be revised to read “Efficacy of Sericocomopsis hildebrandtii, Carissa edulis, and Ximenia americana in treating cysticercosis in pigs’’

Abstract: (1) The methods should be described well. (2) The use of the term ‘concoction’ is inappropriate. (3) It is not clear how the control pigs were treated.

Introduction: (1) This section should be revised and improved accordingly. (2) Most references are > 10 years old- Updated and current citations should be adopted. (3) The authors should describe the study plants and include information on what is already known about them. (4) It is not clear whether the collection of ethnomedical information of the studied plants was structured according to the conventional standards.

Methods: (1) Did the authors consider bioconservation and biodiversity of the plants since they uprooted them? (2) The authors should describe the conditions of the environment where the pigs were held, and state how they were handled. (3) The study design seems to be a controlled randomised study design and not a randomised controlled trial design as purported. (4) The experimental design should be revised accordingly. They should have individual groups receiving each respective plant and another group receiving the mixture in an appropriate manner. (5) The authors have not described the status of the control pigs or how they were treated or even the type of control. (6) Appropriate statistics ought to be performed.

Discussion: This should be rewritten after addressing the concerns above.

The language should be improved significantly.

Presentation

Overall score 2.3 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
2 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
2 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 2.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
2 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
2 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 1.2 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
1 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
1 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
2 out of 5