Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30248931›Full record

ReviewVeterinary sciences2018

Dogs (

Natasha H Bowser, Neil E Anderson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Natasha H BowserThe Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and the Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin EH25 9RG, UK. nhbowser@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0630-9880
Neil E AndersonThe Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and the Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin EH25 9RG, UK. neil.anderson@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7192-7717

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a world where climate change, vector expansion, human activity, and pathogen dispersal do not respect boundaries, the human⁻animal⁻pathogen interface has become less defined. Consequently, a One Health approach to disease surveillance and control has generated much interest across several disciplines. This systematic review evaluates current global research on the use of domestic dogs as sentinels for human infectious disease, and critically appraises how this may be applied within Canada. Results highlighted a bias in research from high- and middle-income-economy countries, with 35% of the studies describing data from the Latin America/Caribbean region, 25% from North America, and 11% from the European/Central Asia region. Bacteria were the most studied type of infectious agent, followed by protozoa, viruses, helminths, and fungi. Only six out of 142 studies described disease in Canada: four researched a variety of pathogens within Indigenous communities, one researched

Indexed as

dogsemerging diseaseinfectious diseaseOne Healthsentinel surveillancezoonosis

Identifiers

PMID30248931
PMCPMC6313866

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.