ArticleRoyal Society open science2019
Rapidly assessing the risks of infectious diseases to wildlife species.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circulation of small ruminant lentivirus in endangered goat and sheep breeds of Southern Italy.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Approaches for disease prioritization and decision-making in animal health, 2000-2021: a structured scoping review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- The importance of fine-scale predictors of wild boar habitat use in an isolated population.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- An expert-based risk ranking framework for assessing potential pathogens in the live baitfish trade.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2021Article
- Multifactorial Rare Diseases: Can Uncertainty Analysis Bring Added Value to the Search for Risk Factors and Etiopathogenesis?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Untapped potential: The utility of drylands for testing eco-evolutionary relationships between hosts and parasites.International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2020Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predicting the likelihood of rare events is increasingly demanded by risk managers. A key challenge is dealing with different types of uncertainty, including epistemic uncertainties (lack of knowledge), stochasticity (inherent randomness) and natural variation. One potentially catastrophic event which is impacted by high levels of all three of these uncertainty types is the transmission of livestock pathogens to wildlife, particularly for endangered species. There is often a lack of basic information, e.g. about a given pathogen's presence in local livestock populations or the susceptibility of a given wildlife species to infection by the pathogen. We adapted the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) risk assessment framework to rapidly assess and prioritize the risks of livestock pathogens for wildlife, taking account of epistemic uncertainties, stochasticity, seasonal movement of animals and interaction between different species at different spatial and temporal scales. We demonstrate the approach using the endangered saiga antelope (
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.