ArticlePloS one2018
Bat rabies in Washington State: Temporal-spatial trends and risk factors for zoonotic transmission (2000-2017).
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the extent and public health impact of bat predation by domestic animals using data from a rabies passive surveillance program.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Zoonotic Risk: One More Good Reason Why Cats Should Be Kept Away from Bats.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Australian Bat Lyssavirus: Analysis of National Bat Surveillance Data from 2010 to 2016.Viruses · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRabies is a zoonotic viral disease that can affect all mammals. In the United States, the majority of human rabies cases are caused by bats, which are the only known reservoirs for rabies virus (RABV) in Washington State. We sought to characterize bat RABV epidemiology in Washington among bats submitted by the public for RABV testing.
methodsWe examined temporal and spatial trends in RABV positivity (% positive) for taxonomically identified bats submitted to diagnostic laboratories during 2006-2017. For a subset of Myotis species, we evaluated sensitivity and predictive value positive (PPV) of morphological identification keys, using mitochondrial markers (cytochrome b) as a reference. For bats tested during 2000-2016, we analyzed RABV positivity by circumstances of encounters with humans, cats, and dogs.
resultsDuring 2006-2017, RABV positivity for all bat species was 6.0% (176/2,928). Among species with ≥100 submissions, RABV positivity was 2.0%-11.7% and highest among big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). An increasing trend in annual positivity was significant only for big brown bats (P = 0.02), and was circumstantially linked to a geographic cluster. Sensitivity and PPV of morphological identification keys was high for M. evotis but varied for M. lucifugus, M. californicus, M. yumanensis, and M. septentrionalis. A positive RABV result was significantly associated with nonsynanthropic species, abnormal behavior, abnormal hiding, injury, biting, found in a body of water, found alive, found outdoors, and caught by a dog.
conclusionMonitoring passive RABV surveillance trends enables public health authorities to perform more accurate risk assessments. Differences in temporal and spatial trends in RABV positivity by bat species indicate the importance of collecting taxonomic data, although morphological identification can be unreliable for certain Myotis species. Current public health practices for RABV exposures should be maintained as RABV infection in bats can never be excluded without diagnostic testing.
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.