Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25870393›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015

Infectious disease transmission and contact networks in wildlife and livestock.

Meggan E Craft

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 133 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
59.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

133 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 360 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Infectious disease and group size: more than just a numbers game.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Global vaccination coverage and disease incidence in cattle, pigs, and poultry.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The ecology of ageing in wild societies: linking age structure and social behaviour.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

73 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Meggan E CraftDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN 55108, USA craft@umn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5333-8513
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of social and contact networks to answer basic and applied questions about infectious disease transmission in wildlife and livestock is receiving increased attention. Through social network analysis, we understand that wild animal and livestock populations, including farmed fish and poultry, often have a heterogeneous contact structure owing to social structure or trade networks. Network modelling is a flexible tool used to capture the heterogeneous contacts of a population in order to test hypotheses about the mechanisms of disease transmission, simulate and predict disease spread, and test disease control strategies. This review highlights how to use animal contact data, including social networks, for network modelling, and emphasizes that researchers should have a pathogen of interest in mind before collecting or using contact data. This paper describes the rising popularity of network approaches for understanding transmission dynamics in wild animal and livestock populations; discusses the common mismatch between contact networks as measured in animal behaviour and relevant parasites to match those networks; and highlights knowledge gaps in how to collect and analyse contact data. Opportunities for the future include increased attention to experiments, pathogen genetic markers and novel computational tools.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsAnimals, WildBehavior, AnimalCommunicable DiseasesContact TracingHost-Pathogen InteractionsHost SpecificityLivestockSocial Behaviorcontact analysiscontact network epidemiologydynamic network modelinfectious diseasenetwork modellingtransmission dynamics

Identifiers

PMID25870393
PMCPMC4410373
OpenAlexW2152132956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.