ReviewZoonoses and public health2017
More bark than bite: Comparative studies are needed to determine the importance of canine zoonoses in Aboriginal communities. A critical review of published research.
Review in Zoonoses and public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of human and zoonotic dog soil-transmitted helminth infections in Australian Indigenous communities.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment for Canine Parasites in Remote Indigenous Communities.EcoHealth · 2025Article
- Eliminate all risks: A call to reexamine the link between canine scabies and rheumatic heart disease.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- A comparative field efficacy trial of three treatment programs against endo- and ectoparasites in naturally infected dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- One Health and Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities: A One Health Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Data analysis of zoonoses notifications in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations in Australia 1996-2021: implications for One Health.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- One Health in Indigenous Communities: A Critical Review of the Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Representations of Free-Living and Unrestrained Dogs as an Emerging Public Health Issue in Australian Newspapers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Towards One Health clinical management of zoonoses: A parallel survey of Australian general medical practitioners and veterinarians.Zoonoses and public health · 2021Article
- Evaluating Impacts of a One Health Approach to Companion Animal Health and Management in a Remote Aboriginal Community in the Northern Territory, Australia.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- One Health promotion and the politics of dog management in remote, northern Australian communities.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Evaluation of a Dog Population Management Intervention: Measuring Indicators of Impact.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- "They Reckon They're Man's Best Friend and I Believe That." Understanding Relationships with Dogs in Australian Aboriginal Communities to Inform Effective Dog Population Management.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Zoonotic Helminth Diseases in Dogs and Dingoes Utilising Shared Resources in an Australian Aboriginal Community.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2018Article
- A Survey of Intestinal Parasites of Domestic Dogs in Central Queensland.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2017Article
- More bark than bite: Comparative studies are needed to determine the importance of canine zoonoses in Aboriginal communities. A critical review of published research.Zoonoses and public health · 2017Review
- Estimated seroprevalence of Ehrlichia canis in dogs in a remote community in the Northern Territory, Australia.Australian veterinary journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this review was to identify and critique over forty years of peer-reviewed literature concerned with the transmission of canine zoonoses to Aboriginal people and determine the zoonotic organisms documented in dogs in Australian Aboriginal communities. A systematic literature search of public health, medical and veterinary databases identified 19 articles suitable for critical appraisal. Thirteen articles documented the occurrence of recognized zoonotic organisms in dogs in Aboriginal communities, including Toxocara canis, Dirofilaria immitis, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Rickettsia felis, Sarcoptes scabiei and Giardia. Currently, there is definitive evidence indicating that dogs act as a reservoir for human scabies in Aboriginal communities. However, there is a need for large-scale, high-quality, comparative studies of dogs and humans from the same household to assess the occurrence and importance of transmission of S. scabiei and other diseases between dogs and humans. These studies should use current genetic and molecular techniques along with traditional techniques to identify and type organisms in order to better understand their epidemiology. This review has revealed that there is a lack of high-quality comparative studies to determine whether dogs are contributing to human disease by transmitting zoonoses. Our recommendations differ significantly from current public health policy and may have substantial implications for human and dog health.
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.