ReviewZoonoses and public health2022
A review of the circumstances and health-seeking behaviours associated with bat exposures in high-income countries.
Review in Zoonoses and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions and public health risks of the bat-human interface in households from fragmented rural landscapes in southern Chile.PloS one · 2026Article
- One Health Lens on Rabies: Human-Bat Interactions and Genomic Insights of Rabies Virus in Rural Lilongwe, Malawi.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Human-bat contacts in the Netherlands, and potential risks for virus exchange.One health outlook · 2025Article
- Corrigendum.Zoonoses and public health · 2023Article
- Opportunities and Limitations of Molecular Methods for Studying Bat-Associated Pathogens.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- A review of the circumstances and health-seeking behaviours associated with bat exposures in high-income countries.Zoonoses and public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2023
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human-bat interactions are now the source of the majority of locally acquired human lyssavirus infections in many high-income countries without hematophagous or 'vampire' bat species. This study aims to identify the most common types and circumstances of bat exposures occurring among members of the general public in high-income countries with no hematophagous bats, and to describe the health-seeking behaviours associated with exposures in these settings. We conducted a scoping review of relevant academic and grey literature on bat exposures and confirmed bat lyssavirus infections among members of the general public in Australia, Canada, the United States and high-income European countries from 1996 to 2019. Case studies and population-based studies were included for analysis, and findings were extracted and synthesized by the literature type and geographic region. A total of 63 publications were identified, including: 47 case studies and 16 population-based studies. Overall, most exposures in Australia and Europe were intentionally initiated by humans and involved attempts to handle, touch or help a bat. In North America, however, household exposures were more common and predominantly involved a bat being found in a room or area where a person had slept. Studies also showed that a proportion of bat exposures in high-income countries go unreported in the absence of a public health investigation and are therefore unlikely to receive prompt treatment. The results of this review suggest that the most effective strategies for preventing bat exposures vary between regions and that health-seeking behaviours following bat exposures could be improved in high-income settings.
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.