Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21527981›Full record

ArticleInterdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases2011

Network models: an underutilized tool in wildlife epidemiology?

Meggan E Craft, Damien Caillaud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Social ageing can protect against infectious disease in a group-living primate.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Simple economics of vaccination: public policies and incentives.International journal of health economics and management · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Foraging and mating behaviors ofEcology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Meggan E CraftBoyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Heath, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK.
Damien Caillaud

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the approach of contact network epidemiology has been increasing in popularity for studying transmission of infectious diseases in human populations, it has generally been an underutilized approach for investigating disease outbreaks in wildlife populations. In this paper we explore the differences between the type of data that can be collected on human and wildlife populations, provide an update on recent advances that have been made in wildlife epidemiology by using a network approach, and discuss why networks might have been underutilized and why networks could and should be used more in the future. We conclude with ideas for future directions and a call for field biologists and network modelers to engage in more cross-disciplinary collaboration.

Identifiers

PMID21527981
PMCPMC3063006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.