ArticlePloS one2020
Circumstances of human conflicts with bears and patterns of bear maul injuries in Bhutan: Review of records 2015-2019.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- First Free Anterolateral Thigh Flap for Facial Reconstruction Following Bear Mauling in Bhutan.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- CT-based assessment of bear-inflicted maxillofacial injuries: evaluation using the facial injury severity scale and its association with hospitalization duration.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Toxin-Induced Liver Injury Following Bear Bile Consumption in a Middle-Aged Female in Bhutan: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Honey Thieves: Human-Bear Conflict Patterns and Residents' Attitudes in Mountains of Southwest Zhejiang, China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Bear Maul Injury among Patients Presenting to the Department of Surgery in a Tertiary Care Centre: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bhutan is one of the biological hotspots in the world where humans and natural flora and fauna co-exist in close proximity. Bhutan is home to two species of bears: Sloth Bear and Himalayan Black Bear. Human conflicts with bears are reported from all over the country. This study describes the profile of the victims and the pattern of injury resulting from bear attacks and circumstances around human conflicts with bears in Bhutan between 2015 and 2019. This was a cross-sectional study with a review of hospital records of patients treated at the National Referral Hospital from 01 January 2015 till 31 December 2019. Data were extracted into a structured pro forma and entered into EpiData Entry 3.1 and analysed in STATA 13.1. There were thirty-four patients who were provided care for bear maul injuries, with an average annual caseload of 6.8 cases per year. The injury prevalence was 100% and the kill prevalence was 0%. Bear attacks were reported from fourteen of twenty districts of the country. The mean age of the victims was 49 (±13) years. Males (26, 76%) and farmers (26, 76%) were the common victims; the risk of bear attacks was 0.16 per 100,000 farmers per year. The commonest region of the body attacked was the face (29, 85%) and victims were provided emergency and rehabilitative care within and outside the country. Thirty-three victims (97%) were provided post-exposure prophylaxis for rabies. All victims received antibiotics despite the lack of national guidelines on the choice of antibiotics post-bear maul. Human-bear conflict is multi-faceted, puts a considerable strain on bear-conservation efforts and requires multi-disciplinary efforts in the prevention of human injury and socioeconomic losses.
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.