Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33173619›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Towards a unified generic framework to define and observe contacts between livestock and wildlife: a systematic review.

Sonny A Bacigalupo, Linda K Dixon, Simon Gubbins, Adam J Kucharski, Julian A Drewe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Vision-Based Module for Herding with a Sheepdog Robot.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sonny A BacigalupoRoyal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.
Linda K DixonThe Pirbright Institute, Woking, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Simon GubbinsThe Pirbright Institute, Woking, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Adam J KucharskiLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Julian A DreweRoyal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.
Royal Veterinary College · GBThe Pirbright Institute · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/I/00007036Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/I/00007037Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/I/00007038
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wild animals are the source of many pathogens of livestock and humans. Concerns about the potential transmission of economically important and zoonotic diseases from wildlife have led to increased surveillance at the livestock-wildlife interface. Knowledge of the types, frequency and duration of contacts between livestock and wildlife is necessary to identify risk factors for disease transmission and to design possible mitigation strategies. Observing the behaviour of many wildlife species is challenging due to their cryptic nature and avoidance of humans, meaning there are relatively few studies in this area. Further, a consensus on the definition of what constitutes a 'contact' between wildlife and livestock is lacking. A systematic review was conducted to investigate which livestock-wildlife contacts have been studied and why, as well as the methods used to observe each species. Over 30,000 publications were screened, of which 122 fulfilled specific criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The majority of studies examined cattle contacts with badgers or with deer; studies involving wild pig contacts with cattle or with domestic pigs were the next most frequent. There was a range of observational methods including motion-activated cameras and global positioning system collars. As a result of the wide variation and lack of consensus in the definitions of direct and indirect contacts, we developed a unified framework to define livestock-wildlife contacts that is sufficiently flexible to be applied to most wildlife and livestock species for non-vector-borne diseases. We hope this framework will help standardise the collection and reporting of contact data; a valuable step towards being able to compare the efficacy of wildlife-livestock observation methods. In doing so, it may aid the development of better disease transmission models and improve the design and effectiveness of interventions to reduce or prevent disease transmission.

Indexed as

ContactDefinitionDisease transmissionFrameworkInteractionInterfaceMethodsWildlife-livestock

Identifiers

PMID33173619
PMCPMC7594637
OpenAlexW3096246306

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.