Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31174545›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

A comparison of population estimation techniques for individually unidentifiable free-roaming dogs.

N V Meunier, A D Gibson, J Corfmat, S Mazeri, I G Handel, L Gamble, B Mde C Bronsvoort, R J Mellanby

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors.

N V MeunierThe Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies (R(D)SVS) and the Roslin Institute, Hospital for Small Animals, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, Scotland.
A D GibsonMission Rabies, 4 Castle Street, Cranborne, Dorset, BH21 5PZ, UK.
J CorfmatMission Rabies, 4 Castle Street, Cranborne, Dorset, BH21 5PZ, UK.
S MazeriMission Rabies, 4 Castle Street, Cranborne, Dorset, BH21 5PZ, UK.
I G HandelThe Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies (R(D)SVS) and the Roslin Institute, Hospital for Small Animals, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, Scotland.
L GambleMission Rabies, 4 Castle Street, Cranborne, Dorset, BH21 5PZ, UK.
B Mde C BronsvoortThe Epidemiology, Economics and Risk Assessment (EERA) Group, The Roslin Institute and the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies (R(D)SVS), Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, Scotland.
R J MellanbyThe Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies (R(D)SVS) and the Roslin Institute, Hospital for Small Animals, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, Scotland. Richard.Mellanby@ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3467-7007

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council bb/J004235/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasuring the size of free roaming dog populations quickly and accurately is critical in the implementation of numerous preventive health and population control interventions. However, few studies have investigated the relative performance of population size assessment tools when applied to dogs. The aim of this study was to compare the commonly used mark-resight methodology with distance sampling methods, which are less resource intensive, to estimate free-roaming dog abundance in Goa, India. Twenty-six working zones were surveyed along all roads twice by the same surveyor at the same time of day, following a vaccination campaign which included marking of vaccinated dogs with a coloured paint. The Chapman estimate was then used to evaluate the mark-resight abundance. Additionally, the number of dogs and perpendicular distance from the road for all dogs sighted was recorded. This was used to estimate dog density and abundance using distance sampling methods. The detection function was fitted based on goodness-of-fit and AIC.

resultsThe Chapman abundance estimate for the entire study area was 5202 dogs (95%CI 4733.8-5671.0), and the distance sampling method abundance estimate was 5067 dogs (95%CI 4454.3-5764.2). For individual working zones, after taking other factors into account in a mixed effects model, the average distance sampling estimate was 35% higher (95%CI 20-53%) than the Chapman estimate. There was also evidence of a difference in estimates between surveyors of 21% (95%CI 7-37%) and between days (22% lower on day 2, 95%CI 8-38%) for individual working zones.

conclusionOur study demonstrated that the distance sampling estimates were comparable overall to the Chapman method of abundance estimation of free roaming dogs across the entire study region but there was noticeable variation between the two methods when individual zones were compared. Consequently, distance sampling methods may be suitable to enumerate dogs over large areas in a more time efficient manner than the widely used mark-resight approach.

Indexed as

DogsAnimal Identification SystemsAnimalsIndiaPopulation DensityPopulation SurveillanceRabies VaccinesVaccinationRabies VaccinesDog abundanceFree-roaming dogsMark resightPopulation estimation

Identifiers

PMID31174545
PMCPMC6556045

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.