Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35804619›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

A Review of Non-Invasive Sampling in Wildlife Disease and Health Research: What's New?

Anna-Katarina Schilling, Maria Vittoria Mazzamuto, Claudia Romeo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Non-Invasive Salivary Reproductive Endocrine Profiles in Gentoo Penguins.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Anna-Katarina SchillingPreviously Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3088-3073
Maria Vittoria MazzamutoHaub School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY 82072, USA.
Claudia RomeoIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), Via Bianchi 9, 25124 Brescia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5964-2847
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna "Bruno Ubertini" · ITRoslin Institute · GBUniversity of Insubria · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decades, wildlife diseases and the health status of animal populations have gained increasing attention from the scientific community as part of a One Health framework. Furthermore, the need for non-invasive sampling methods with a minimal impact on wildlife has become paramount in complying with modern ethical standards and regulations, and to collect high-quality and unbiased data. We analysed the publication trends on non-invasive sampling in wildlife health and disease research and offer a comprehensive review on the different samples that can be collected non-invasively. We retrieved 272 articles spanning from 1998 to 2021, with a rapid increase in number from 2010. Thirty-nine percent of the papers were focussed on diseases, 58% on other health-related topics, and 3% on both. Stress and other physiological parameters were the most addressed research topics, followed by viruses, helminths, and bacterial infections. Terrestrial mammals accounted for 75% of all publications, and faeces were the most widely used sample. Our review of the sampling materials and collection methods highlights that, although the use of some types of samples for specific applications is now consolidated, others are perhaps still underutilised and new technologies may offer future opportunities for an even wider use of non-invasively collected samples.

Indexed as

3Rsanimal healthfield samplingnon-invasive methodswildlife pathogenswildlife species

Identifiers

PMID35804619
PMCPMC9265025
OpenAlexW4283785578

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.