Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36548781›Full record

ReviewToxins2022

Toxic Habits: An Analysis of General Trends and Biases in Snake Venom Research.

Ignazio Avella, Wolfgang Wüster, Luca Luiselli, Fernando Martínez-Freiría

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxins, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Exploring gaps, biases, and research priorities in the evidence for reptile conservation actions.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Venomics of the milos viper (Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023
    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

4 authors.

Ignazio AvellaCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Campus de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-3576-8805
Wolfgang WüsterMolecular Ecology and Evolution at Bangor, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor LL57 2UW, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4890-4311
Luca LuiselliInstitute for Development, Ecology, Conservation & Cooperation, Via G. Tomasi di Lampedusa 33, I-00144 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6878-2916
Fernando Martínez-FreiríaCIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Campus de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2311-8960

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biases in snake venom research have been partially identified but seldomly quantified. Using the Google Scholar web search engine, we collected a total of 267 articles published between 1964 and 2021, and reviewed them to assess the main trends in this field of study. We developed a 4-category classification of the harmful potential of each of the 298 snake species retrieved from the analysed publications, and tested whether taxonomy, realm of origin, and/or assigned hazard category could affect how often each of them appeared in the articles considered. Overall, viperids were significantly more represented than any other snake taxon retrieved. The Neotropics were the most represented biogeographic realm for number of studied species, whereas information about the country of origin of the analysed specimens was often incomplete. The vast majority of the publications focused on snake venom characterisation, whereas more ecology-related topics were rarely considered. Hazard category and biogeographic realm of origin of each species had a significant effect on the number of articles dedicated to it, suggesting that a snake's harmful potential and place of origin influence its popularity in venom studies. Our analysis showed an overall positive trend in the number of snake venom studies published yearly, but also underlined severe neglect of snake families of supposedly minor medical relevance (e.g., Atractaspididae), underrepresentation of some of the areas most impacted by snakebite (i.e., Indomalayan and Afrotropic realms), and limited interest in the ecological and functional context of snake venom.

Indexed as

Snake BitesSnake VenomsAnimalsBiasSnakesSnake Venomsbibliometric analysisresearch biasesreviewsnakestrendsvenom

Identifiers

PMID36548781
PMCPMC9783912

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.