Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36090172›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Evaluation of minimally invasive sampling methods for detecting

Aoife N Galvin, Pranav S Pandit, Simon G English, Rachel C Quock, Ruta R Bandivadekar, Rita R Colwell, Barbara W Robinson, Holly B Ernest, Mollie H Brown, Ravinder N M Sehgal and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Poxvirus Infections in Common Swifts (Veterinary sciences · 2026
    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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Aoife N GalvinDepartment of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Pranav S PanditEpiCenter for Disease Dynamics, One Health Insititute, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Simon G EnglishDepartment of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Rachel C QuockDepartment of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Ruta R BandivadekarDepartment of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Rita R ColwellHummingbird Monitoring Network, Patagonia, AZ, United States.
Barbara W RobinsonHummingbird Monitoring Network, Patagonia, AZ, United States.
Holly B ErnestWildlife Genomics and Disease Ecology Laboratory, Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, United States.
Mollie H BrownDepartment of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Ravinder N M SehgalDepartment of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Lisa A TellDepartment of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
University of California, Davis · USSan Francisco State University · USHummingbird Monitoring Network · USCenter for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy · USUniversity of Wyoming · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Avian pox is a common avian virus that in its cutaneous form can cause characteristic lesions on a bird's dermal surfaces. Detection of avian pox in free-ranging birds historically relied on observations of visual lesions and/or histopathology, both which can underestimate avian pox prevalence. We compared traditional visual observation methods for avian pox with molecular methods that utilize minimally invasive samples (blood, toenail clipping, feathers, and dermal swabs) in an ecologically important group of birds, hummingbirds. Specifically, avian pox prevalence in several species of hummingbirds were examined across multiple locations using three different methods: (1) visual inspection of hummingbirds for pox-like lesions from a long-term banding data set, (2) qPCR assay of samples from hummingbird carcasses from wildlife rehabilitation centers, and (3) qPCR assay of samples from live-caught hummingbirds. A stark difference in prevalences among these three methods was identified, with an avian pox prevalence of 1.5% from banding data, 20.4% from hummingbird carcasses, and 32.5% from live-caught hummingbirds in California. This difference in detection rates underlines the necessity of a molecular method to survey for avian pox, and this study establishes one such method that could be applied to other wild bird species. Across all three methods, Anna's hummingbirds harbored significantly higher avian pox prevalence than other species examined, as did males compared with females and birds caught in Southern California compared with Northern California. After hatch-year hummingbirds also harbored higher avian pox prevalences than hatch-year hummingbirds in the California banding data set and the carcass data set. This is the first study to estimate the prevalence of avian pox in hummingbirds and address the ecology of this hummingbird-specific strain of avian pox virus, providing vital information to inform future studies on this charismatic and ecologically important group of birds.

Indexed as

avian poxdisease ecologyprevalenceTrochilidaevirus

Identifiers

PMID36090172
PMCPMC9450938
OpenAlexW4292937032

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.