ArticlePloS one2022
Population dynamics of free-roaming dogs in two European regions and implications for population control.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The vacuum effect in free-roaming dog management: Conceptual foundations, boundary conditions, and One Health implications.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Article
- "It's just one piece of the puzzle…": practitioners' perspectives on the use of sterilisation in the management of free-roaming dog populations.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Veterinary Ethics in Practice: Euthanasia Decision Making for Companion and Street Dogs in Istanbul.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Article
- Population Demographics of Owned Dogs in Greater Bangkok and Implications for Free-Roaming Dog Population Management.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Managing free-roaming domestic dog populations using surgical sterilisation: a randomised controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prevalent and Severe Conditions That Compromise the Welfare of Shelter Dogs: Opinions from the Taiwanese Experts.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Free-roaming dog populations and movement methodologies for global rabies elimination: knowns and unknowns - a scoping review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Article
- Advocating for incorporating public veterinary health care into human health systems.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Spatial distribution and population dynamics of free-roaming (stray and semi-domiciled) dogs in a major Brazilian city.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Changes in free-roaming dog population size are important indicators of the effectiveness of dog population management. Assessing the effectiveness of different management methods also requires estimating the processes that change population size, such as the rates of recruitment into and removal from a population. This is one of the first studies to quantify the size, rates of recruitment and removal, and health and welfare status of free-roaming dog populations in Europe. We determined the size, dynamics, and health status of free-roaming dog populations in Pescara, Italy, and Lviv, Ukraine, over a 15-month study period. Both study populations had ongoing dog population management through catch-neuter-release and sheltering programmes. Average monthly apparent survival probability was 0.93 (95% CI 0.81-1.00) in Pescara and 0.93 (95% CI 0.84-0.99) in Lviv. An average of 7 dogs km-2 were observed in Pescara and 40 dogs km-2 in Lviv. Per capita entry probabilities varied between 0.09 and 0.20 in Pescara, and 0.12 and 0.42 in Lviv. In Lviv, detection probability was lower on weekdays (odds ratio: 0.74, 95% CI 0.53-0.96) and higher on market days (odds ratio: 2.58, 95% CI 1.28-4.14), and apparent survival probability was lower in males (odds ratio: 0.25, 95% CI 0.03-0.59). Few juveniles were observed in the study populations, indicating that recruitment may be occurring by movement between dog subpopulations (e.g. from local owned or neighbouring free-roaming dog populations), with important consequences for population control. This study provides important data for planning effective dog population management and for informing population and infectious disease modelling.
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.