ReviewEcoHealth2015
Citizen Science and Wildlife Disease Surveillance.
Review in EcoHealth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disease reservoir or innocent bystander? Evaluating Mycobacterium bovis seroprevalence in Exmoor's wild deer.The Veterinary record · 2026Article
- Estimating the seroprevalence of Mycobacterium bovis infection in a wild deer population in southwest England.The Veterinary record · 2026Article
- Evolution of research on global amphibian declines.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Review
- Multivariate resilience indicators to anticipate vector-borne disease outbreaks: A West Nile virus case-study.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Canine distemper outbreak and laryngeal paralysis in captive tigers (Panthera tigris).BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- The Role of Hunters in Wildlife Health Research and Monitoring: Their Contribution as Citizen Scientists in Italy.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Analysis of a European general wildlife health surveillance program: Chances, challenges and recommendations.PloS one · 2024Article
- Parasitological transitions: selected outcomes from the XXXII Congress of the Italian Society for Parasitology.Parasitology · 2023Article
- The contribution ofParasitology · 2023Review
- Accelerometer-based detection of African swine fever infection in wild boar.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Evaluations of the Disease Surveillance Centre network in Scotland: What parts has it reached?Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- First molecular detection ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Community Science Strategies Reveal Distributional Patterns of Treponeme-Associated Hoof Disease in Washington Elk (Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2023Article
- Descriptive Epidemiology of and Response to the High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza (H5N8) Epidemic in South African Coastal Seabirds, 2018.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2023Article
- Seasonal challenges of tropical bats in temperate zones.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Examining the paradox of urban disease ecology by linking the perspectives of Urban One Health and Ecology with Cities.Urban ecosystems · 2022Article
- A citizen science-based survey of avian mortality focusing on haemosporidian infections in wild passerine birds.Malaria journal · 2021Article
- How to Start Up a National Wildlife Health Surveillance Programme.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Early detection of wildlife morbidity and mortality through an event-based surveillance system.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achieving effective wildlife disease surveillance is challenging. The incorporation of citizen science (CS) in wildlife health surveillance can be beneficial, particularly where resources are limited and cost-effectiveness is paramount. Reports of wildlife morbidity and mortality from the public facilitate large-scale surveillance, both in time and space, which would otherwise be financially infeasible, and raise awareness of incidents occurring on privately owned land. CS wildlife disease surveillance schemes benefit scientists, the participating public and wildlife alike. CS has been employed for targeted, scanning and syndromic surveillance of wildlife disease. Whilst opportunistic surveillance is most common, systematic observations enable the standardisation of observer effort and, combined with wildlife population monitoring schemes, can allow evaluation of disease impacts at the population level. Near-universal access to digital media has revolutionised reporting modalities and facilitated rapid and economical means of sharing feedback with participants. Here we review CS schemes for wildlife disease surveillance and highlight their scope, benefits, logistical considerations, financial implications and potential limitations. The need to adopt a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach to wildlife health surveillance is increasingly recognised and the general public can make a significant contribution through CS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26318592What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.