Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28740850›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2017

The Role of Dog Population Management in Rabies Elimination-A Review of Current Approaches and Future Opportunities.

Louise H Taylor, Ryan M Wallace, Deepashree Balaram, Joann M Lindenmayer, Douglas C Eckery, Beryl Mutonono-Watkiss, Ellie Parravani, Louis H Nel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 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

8 authors.

Louise H TaylorGlobal Alliance for Rabies Control, Manhattan, KS, United States.
Ryan M WallaceCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Deepashree BalaramGlobal Alliance for Rabies Control, Manhattan, KS, United States.
Joann M LindenmayerHumane Society International, Washington, DC, United States.
Douglas C EckeryNational Wildlife Research Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Beryl Mutonono-WatkissWorld Animal Protection, London, United Kingdom.
Ellie ParravaniWorld Animal Protection, London, United Kingdom.
Louis H NelGlobal Alliance for Rabies Control, Manhattan, KS, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Free-roaming dogs and rabies transmission are integrally linked across many low-income countries, and large unmanaged dog populations can be daunting to rabies control program planners. Dog population management (DPM) is a multifaceted concept that aims to improve the health and well-being of free-roaming dogs, reduce problems they may cause, and may also aim to reduce dog population size. In theory, DPM can facilitate more effective rabies control. Community engagement focused on promoting responsible dog ownership and better veterinary care could improve the health of individual animals and dog vaccination coverage, thus reducing rabies transmission. Humane DPM tools, such as sterilization, could theoretically reduce dog population turnover and size, allowing rabies vaccination coverage to be maintained more easily. However, it is important to understand local dog populations and community attitudes toward them in order to determine whether and how DPM might contribute to rabies control and which DPM tools would be most successful. In practice, there is very limited evidence of DPM tools achieving reductions in the size or turnover of dog populations in canine rabies-endemic areas. Different DPM tools are frequently used together and combined with rabies vaccinations, but full impact assessments of DPM programs are not usually available, and therefore, evaluation of tools is difficult. Surgical sterilization is the most frequently documented tool and has successfully reduced dog population size and turnover in a few low-income settings. However, DPM programs are mostly conducted in urban settings and are usually not government funded, raising concerns about their applicability in rural settings and sustainability over time. Technical demands, costs, and the time necessary to achieve population-level impacts are major barriers. Given their potential value, we urgently need more evidence of the effectiveness of DPM tools in the context of canine rabies control. Cheaper, less labor-intensive tools for dog sterilization will be extremely valuable in realizing the potential benefits of reduced population turnover and size. No one DPM tool will fit all situations, but if DPM objectives are achieved dog populations may be stabilized or even reduced, facilitating higher dog vaccination coverages that will benefit rabies elimination efforts.

Indexed as

canine rabiesdog population controldog population managementfree-roaming dogsresponsible dog ownershipsterilizationstray dogs

Identifiers

PMID28740850
PMCPMC5502273

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.