Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34842477›Full record

ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2022

Guidance for management of free-roaming community cats: a bioeconomic analysis.

Valerie A Benka, John D Boone, Philip S Miller, Joyce R Briggs, Aaron M Anderson, Christopher Slootmaker, Margaret Slater, Julie K Levy, Felicia B Nutter, Stephen Zawistowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Characteristics of cat semi-owners.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

10 authors.

Valerie A BenkaAlliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs, Portland, OR, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9962-6692
John D BooneGreat Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, NV, USA.
Philip S MillerIUCN/SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN, USA.
Joyce R BriggsAlliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs, Portland, OR, USA.
Aaron M AndersonUSDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Christopher SlootmakerUSDA National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Margaret SlaterStrategy and Research Department, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New York, NY, USA.
Julie K LevyMaddie's Shelter Medicine Program, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4849-288X
Felicia B NutterCummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, MA, USA.
Stephen ZawistowskiAnimal Behavior and Conservation Program, Hunter College, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study used computer simulation modeling to estimate and compare costs of different free-roaming cat (FRC) management options (lethal and non-lethal removal, trap-neuter-return, combinations of these options and no action) and their ability to reduce FRC population abundance in open demographic settings. The findings provide a resource for selecting management approaches that are well matched for specific communities, goals and timelines, and they represent use of best available science to address FRC issues.

methodsMultiple FRC management approaches were simulated at varying intensities using a stochastic individual-based model in the software package Vortex. Itemized costs were obtained from published literature and expert feedback. Metrics generated to evaluate and compare management scenarios included final population size, total cost and a cost efficiency index, which was the ratio between total cost and population size reduction.

resultsSimulations suggested that cost-effective reduction of FRC numbers required sufficient management intensity, regardless of management approach, and greatly improved when cat abandonment was minimized. Removal yielded the fastest initial reduction in cat abundance, but trap-neuter-return was a viable and potentially more cost-effective approach if performed at higher intensities over a sufficient duration. Of five management scenarios that reduced the final population size by approximately 45%, the three scenarios that relied exclusively on removal were considerably more expensive than the two scenarios that relied exclusively or primarily on sterilization. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: FRCs present a challenge in many municipalities, and stakeholders representing different perspectives may promote varying and sometimes incompatible population management policies and strategies. Although scientific research is often used to identify FRC impacts, its use to identify viable, cost-effective management solutions has been inadequate. The data provided by simulating different interventions, combined with community-specific goals, priorities and ethics, provide a framework for better-informed FRC policy and management outcomes.

Indexed as

Population ControlSterilization, ReproductiveAnimalsCatsComputer SimulationPopulation DensityPopulation DynamicsBioeconomic analysiscosteuthanasiaferal catfree-roaming catneuteringoutdoor catsimulation modelingsterilizationtrap–neuter–return

Identifiers

PMID34842477
PMCPMC9511502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.