Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35550083›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Planetary health2022

Wildmeat consumption and zoonotic spillover: contextualising disease emergence and policy responses.

Charlotte Milbank, Bhaskar Vira

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Planetary health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Design and Implementation of a One Health Framework for Evaluating the Transmission Potential of Pathogens of Public Health Interest for Surveillance Studies.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Charlotte MilbankDepartment of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: cm826@cam.ac.uk.
Bhaskar ViraDepartment of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zoonotic diseases are estimated to constitute 75% of all emerging infectious diseases, of which more than 70% come from wild species. The potential threat of zoonotic spillover from the consumption of wildmeat has been the subject of policy and media attention, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, little is known about the actual conditions that contribute to the risk of spillover and associated disease transmission. In this Review, we compile existing evidence from available literature on the conditions of spillover associated with wildmeat consumption, including the types of wild animal and disease, modes of transmission, and the conditions in which spillover is thought to have occurred. We suggest that stronger understanding of the context of spillover from wildmeat is needed to enable more targeted and effective policy responses that reduce the risk of future pandemics of zoonotic origin. Such interventions could also lead to the avoidance of unintended adverse consequences for human communities that rely on wild produce, including wildmeat, as sources of dietary protein, fat, and micronutrients.

Indexed as

Communicable Diseases, EmergingCOVID-19AnimalsHumansPandemicsPolicyZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID35550083
PMCPMC9084621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.