Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34993247›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Spatial Distribution and Population Estimation of Dogs in Thailand: Implications for Rabies Prevention and Control.

Weerapong Thanapongtharm, Suwicha Kasemsuwan, Vilaiporn Wongphruksasoong, Khemmapat Boonyo, Tanu Pinyopummintr, Anuwat Wiratsudakul, Marius Gilbert, Kansuda Leelahapongsathon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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

8 authors.

Weerapong ThanapongtharmDepartment of Livestock Development (DLD), Bangkok, Thailand.
Suwicha KasemsuwanFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Vilaiporn WongphruksasoongDepartment of Livestock Development (DLD), Bangkok, Thailand.
Khemmapat BoonyoDepartment of Livestock Development (DLD), Bangkok, Thailand.
Tanu PinyopummintrFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Anuwat WiratsudakulDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Public Health and the Monitoring and Surveillance Center for Zoonotic Diseases in Wildlife and Exotic Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Marius GilbertSpatial Epidemiology Lab. (SpELL), University Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Kansuda LeelahapongsathonFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Poor management of dog populations causes many problems in different countries, including rabies. To strategically design a dog population management, certain sets of data are required, such as the population size and spatial distribution of dogs. However, these data are rarely available or incomplete. Hence, this study aimed to describe the characteristics of dog populations in Thailand, explore their spatial distribution and relevant factors, and estimate the number of dogs in the whole country. First, four districts were selected as representatives of each region. Each district was partitioned into grids with a 300-m resolution. The selected grids were then surveyed, and the number of dogs and related data were collected. Random forest models with a two-part approach were used to quantify the association between the surveyed dog population and predictor variables. The spatial distribution of dog populations was then predicted. A total of 1,750 grids were surveyed (945 grids with dog presence and 805 grids with dog absence). Among the surveyed dogs, 86.6% (12,027/13,895) were owned. Of these, 51% were classified as independent, followed by confined (25%), semi-independent (21%), and unidentified dogs (3%). Seventy-two percent (1,348/1,868) of the ownerless dogs were feral, and the rest were community dogs. The spatial pattern of the dog populations was highly distributed in big cities such as Bangkok and its suburbs. In owned dogs, it was linked to household demographics, whereas it was related to community factors in ownerless dogs. The number of estimated dogs in the entire country was 12.8 million heads including 11.2 million owned dogs (21.7 heads/km

Indexed as

dog surveyrabiesrandom forest modelstray dogsThailand

Identifiers

PMID34993247
PMCPMC8724437

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.