Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32636525›Full record

ReviewCommunications biology2020

A systemic approach to assess the potential and risks of wildlife culling for infectious disease control.

Eve Miguel, Vladimir Grosbois, Alexandre Caron, Diane Pople, Benjamin Roche, Christl A Donnelly

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communications biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nationwide seroprevalence and spatial distribution ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. The effectiveness of harvest for limiting wildlife disease: Insights from 20 years of chronic wasting disease in Wyoming.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors.

Eve MiguelMedical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK. eve.miguel@ird.fr.
Vladimir GrosboisASTRE (Animal, Health, Territories, Risks, Ecosystems), CIRAD (Agricultural Research for Development), Univ. Montpellier, INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research), Montpellier, France.
Alexandre CaronASTRE (Animal, Health, Territories, Risks, Ecosystems), CIRAD (Agricultural Research for Development), Univ. Montpellier, INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research), Montpellier, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5213-3273
Diane PopleMedical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Benjamin RocheMIVEGEC (Infectious Diseases and Vectors: Ecology, Genetics, Evolution and Control), IRD (Research Institute for Sustainable Development), CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research), Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Christl A DonnellyMedical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0195-2463

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The maintenance of infectious diseases requires a sufficient number of susceptible hosts. Host culling is a potential control strategy for animal diseases. However, the reduction in biodiversity and increasing public concerns regarding the involved ethical issues have progressively challenged the use of wildlife culling. Here, we assess the potential of wildlife culling as an epidemiologically sound management tool, by examining the host ecology, pathogen characteristics, eco-sociological contexts, and field work constraints. We also discuss alternative solutions and make recommendations for the appropriate implementation of culling for disease control.

Indexed as

Animal CullingAnimals, WildAnimalsCommunicable Disease ControlCommunicable DiseasesConservation of Natural ResourcesEcologyRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID32636525
PMCPMC7340795

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.