Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37958133›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Assessing Disease Risks in Wildlife Translocation Projects: A Comprehensive Review of Disease Incidents.

Regina Kate Warne, Anne-Lise Chaber

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Regina Kate WarneSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Mudla Wirra Road, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7968-1176
Anne-Lise ChaberSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Mudla Wirra Road, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9042-8753
The University of Adelaide · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although translocation projects have been instrumental in the supplementation or restoration of some wild populations, they also carry a large risk of disease transmission to native and translocated animals. This study systematically reviewed conservation translocation projects to identify projects that met the criteria for a translocation significant disease incursion (TSDI), whereby the translocation resulted in negative population growth rates or the failure of populations to grow due to an infectious disease-either in the native or translocated species. In doing so, risk factors for these incidents could be identified. Analysis of the resulting 30 TSDIs demonstrated that there was equal representation of TSDIs using wild-caught and captive-bred animals. Additionally, the type of pathogen predisposed in a TSDI was more likely a result of the animal group translocated (e.g., fungal pathogens were more likely to be detected in amphibian translocations) and it was nearly five times more likely for a disease to be encountered by a translocated species than for a disease to be introduced to a native population. However, there are numerous project-specific predisposing factors for TSDIs, and therefore it is essential that future translocation projects conduct thorough disease risk analysis as well as report their outcomes for the benefit of their own and future translocations.

Indexed as

conservationdisease risk analysisreintroductionrelocation

Identifiers

PMID37958133
PMCPMC10649731
OpenAlexW4388070165

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.