ArticlePLOS global public health2022
Assessing the extent and public health impact of bat predation by domestic animals using data from a rabies passive surveillance program.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Companion Animals as 'Sentinels' From the One Health Perspective.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Review
- A cross-sectional survey on fruit bat-human interaction in Pakistan; one health perspective.One health outlook · 2023Article
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
Domestic animals can serve as consequential conveyors of zoonotic pathogens across wildlife-human interfaces. Still, there has been little study on how different domestic species and their behaviors influence the zoonotic risk to humans. In this study, we examined patterns of bat encounters with domestic animals that resulted in submission for testing at the rabies laboratories of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) during 2014-2020. Our goals were specifically to examine how the number of bats submitted and the number of rabies positive bats varied by the type of domestic animal exposure and whether domestic cats were indoor or free-roaming. The CFIA reported 6258 bat submissions for rabies testing, of which 41.5% and 8.7% had encounter histories with cats and dogs, respectively. A much smaller fraction of bat submissions (0.3%) had exposure to other domestic animals, and 49.5% had no domestic animal exposure. For the bat submissions related to cats, and where lifestyle was noted, 91.1% were associated with free-roaming cats and 8.9% with indoor cats. Model results indicated the probability of a rabies-positive bat was the highest with a history of dog association (20.2%), followed by bats with no animal exposure (16.7%), free-roaming cats (6.9%), cats with unspecified histories (6.0%) and the lowest probability associated with non-free-roaming (indoor) cats (3.8%). Although there was lower rabies prevalence in bats associated with cats compared to dogs, the 4.8 fold higher number of cat-bat interactions cumulatively leads to a greater overall rabies exposure risk to humans from any free-roaming outdoor cats. This study suggests that free-roaming owned cats may have an underappreciated role in cryptic rabies exposures in humans and as a significant predator of bats. Preventing free-roaming in cats is a cost-effective and underutilized public health recommendation for rabies prevention that also synergistically reduces the health burden of other feline-associated zoonotic diseases and promotes feline welfare and wildlife conservation.
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.