Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24531334›Full record

ReviewViruses2014

Experimental infections of wild birds with West Nile virus.

Elisa Pérez-Ramírez, Francisco Llorente, Miguel Ángel Jiménez-Clavero

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Viruses, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Range expansion ofOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Article
  18. New enemies: contribution of CPathogens and global health · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Elisa Pérez-RamírezCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (CISA), Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Valdeolmos (Madrid), 28130, Spain. elisaperezramirez@gmail.com.
Francisco LlorenteCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (CISA), Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Valdeolmos (Madrid), 28130, Spain. dgracia@inia.es.
Miguel Ángel Jiménez-ClaveroCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (CISA), Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Valdeolmos (Madrid), 28130, Spain. majimenez@inia.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Avian models of West Nile virus (WNV) disease have become pivotal in the study of infection pathogenesis and transmission, despite the intrinsic constraints that represents this type of experimental research that needs to be conducted in biosecurity level 3 (BSL3) facilities. This review summarizes the main achievements of WNV experimental research carried out in wild birds, highlighting advantages and limitations of this model. Viral and host factors that determine the infection outcome are analyzed in detail, as well as recent discoveries about avian immunity, viral transmission, and persistence achieved through experimental research. Studies of laboratory infections in the natural host will help to understand variations in susceptibility and reservoir competence among bird species, as well as in the epidemiological patterns found in different affected areas.

Indexed as

AnimalsBird DiseasesBirdsDisease Models, AnimalHost-Pathogen InteractionsWest Nile FeverWest Nile virus

Identifiers

PMID24531334
PMCPMC3939481

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.