Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29595380›Full record

ArticleJournal of wildlife diseases2018

EVALUATION OF ORAL RABIES VACCINATION: PROTECTION AGAINST RABIES IN WILD CAUGHT RACCOONS ( PROCYON LOTOR).

Jesse D Blanton, Michael Niezgoda, Cathleen A Hanlon, Craig B Swope, Jason Suckow, Brandi Saidy, Kathleen Nelson, Richard B Chipman, Dennis Slate

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of wildlife diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Accounting for animal movement improves vaccination strategies against wildlife disease in heterogeneous landscapes.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Raccoon (Heliyon · 2018
    Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jesse D Blanton1   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
Michael Niezgoda1   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
Cathleen A Hanlon1   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
Craig B Swope2   United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, 59 Chenell Dr., Concord, New Hampshire 03301, USA.
Jason Suckow2   United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, 59 Chenell Dr., Concord, New Hampshire 03301, USA.
Brandi Saidy2   United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, 59 Chenell Dr., Concord, New Hampshire 03301, USA.
Kathleen Nelson2   United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, 59 Chenell Dr., Concord, New Hampshire 03301, USA.
Richard B Chipman2   United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, 59 Chenell Dr., Concord, New Hampshire 03301, USA.
Dennis Slate2   United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, 59 Chenell Dr., Concord, New Hampshire 03301, USA.
United States Department of Agriculture · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral rabies vaccination (ORV) is an effective tactic for wildlife rabies control, particularly for containment of disease spread along epizootic fronts. As part of the continuing evaluation of the ORV program in free-ranging raccoons ( Procyon lotor) in the US, 37 raccoons from ORV-baited areas in Pennsylvania were live-trapped and transferred to captivity to evaluate protection against rabies in animals with varying levels of existing neutralizing antibodies, expressed in international units per milliliter (IU/mL). Among the 37 raccoons at the date of capture, 24% (9/37) of raccoons were seronegative (<0.05 IU/mL), 22% (8/37) were low positive (≥0.05-0.11 IU/mL), 27% (10/37) were medium positive (>0.11-<0.5 IU/mL), and 27% (10/37) were high positive (≥0.5 IU/mL). Raccoons were held for 86-199 d between the date of capture and rabies virus challenge. At challenge, 68% (25/37) raccoons were seronegative. The overall survival rate among challenged animals was 46% (17/37). Based on the antibody titers at the time of challenge, survivorship was 24% (6/25) among seronegative animals, 100% (4/4) among low positive animals, 83% (5/6) among medium positive animals, and 100% (2/2) among high positive animals. Evidence of high-titer seroconversion after vaccination is a good surrogate indicator of rabies survival; however, survival rates of approximately 45% (15/35) were found among raccoons with detectable titers below 0.5 IU/mL. In contrast, any detectable titer at the time of challenge (>3 mo after vaccination) appeared to be a surrogate indicator of survival. Overall, we illustrated significant differences in the value of specific titers as surrogates for survival based on the timing of measurement relative to vaccination. However, survivorship was generally greater than 45% among animals with any detectable titer regardless of the timing of measurement. These findings suggest that lower titer cutoffs may represent a valid approach to measuring immunization coverage within ORV management zones, balancing both sensitivity and specificity for estimating herd immunity.

Indexed as

Animals, WildRaccoonsAdministration, OralAnimalsAntibodies, ViralRabiesRabies VaccinesAntibodies, ViralRabies VaccinesNeutralizing antibodiesProcyon lotorrabiesraccoonvaccinationvirus

Identifiers

PMID29595380
PMCPMC6035069
OpenAlexW2794797575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.