SynthesisPloS one2015
Population Estimation Methods for Free-Ranging Dogs: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the role of surgical sterilisation in canine rabies control: A systematic review of impact and outcomes.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Pooled it
- Climate Change and Socioeconomic Vulnerability: The Carpathian Basin as a Potential Hotspot in the Dissemination of Dirofilaria repens in Europe.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
- Characteristics in the Population of Stray Dogs and Changes After One Year From a City in Southern Mexico.Veterinary medicine international · 2025Article
- Estimation of free-roaming dog populations using Google Street View: A methodological study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Free-roaming dog populations and movement methodologies for global rabies elimination: knowns and unknowns - a scoping review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Spatial distribution and population dynamics of free-roaming (stray and semi-domiciled) dogs in a major Brazilian city.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Dynamics, Demography and Estimation of Free-Roaming Dog Population in Herat City, Afghanistan.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- The Influence of Community Feeders and Commercial Food Outlets on the Spatial Distribution of Free-Roaming Dogs-A Photographic Capture and Recapture Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Heterogeneity in dog population characteristics contributes to chronic under-vaccination against rabies in Guatemala.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Dynamic modeling of female neutering interventions for free-roaming dog population management in an urban setting of southeastern Iran.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Household survey on owned dog population and rabies knowledge in selected municipalities in Bulacan, Philippines: A cross-sectional study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Population dynamics of free-roaming dogs in two European regions and implications for population control.PloS one · 2022Article
- Analyses of Contact Networks of Community Dogs on a University Campus in Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.Veterinary sciences · 2021Article
- Free-Roaming Dog Surveys in Quito, Ecuador: Experiences, Lessons Learned, and Future Work.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- A Novel Sampling Model to Study the Epidemiology of Canine Leishmaniasis in an Urban Environment.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- An accessible scheme for monitoring free-roaming cat population trends.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Article
- The Effectiveness of Dog Population Management: A Systematic Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2019Review
- Article
- A comparison of population estimation techniques for individually unidentifiable free-roaming dogs.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The understanding of the structure of free-roaming dog populations is of extreme importance for the planning and monitoring of populational control strategies and animal welfare. The methods used to estimate the abundance of this group of dogs are more complex than the ones used with domiciled owned dogs. In this systematic review, we analyze the techniques and the results obtained in studies that seek to estimate the size of free-ranging dog populations. Twenty-six studies were reviewed regarding the quality of execution and their capacity to generate valid estimates. Seven of the eight publications that take a simple count of the animal population did not consider the different probabilities of animal detection; only one study used methods based on distances; twelve relied on capture-recapture models for closed populations without considering heterogeneities in capture probabilities; six studies applied their own methods with different potential and limitations. Potential sources of bias in the studies were related to the inadequate description or implementation of animal capturing or viewing procedures and to inadequacies in the identification and registration of dogs. Thus, there was a predominance of estimates with low validity. Abundance and density estimates carried high variability, and all studies identified a greater number of male dogs. We point to enhancements necessary for the implementation of future studies and to potential updates and revisions to the recommendations of the World Health Organization with respect to the estimation of free-ranging dog populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.