Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38568991›Full record

ReviewPloS one2024

Where are you hiding the pangolins? screening tools to detect illicit contraband at international borders and their adaptability for illegal wildlife trafficking.

Georgia Kate Moloney, Anne-Lise Chaber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Combining detection dogs with air extraction methodology to expose wildlife trafficking in containerized cargo.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. 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.

Georgia Kate MoloneySchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9717-6384
Anne-Lise ChaberSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The illegal movement of wildlife poses a public health, conservation and biosecurity threat, however there are currently minimal screening tools available at international ports of entry to intercept wildlife trafficking efforts. This review first aimed to explore the screening tools available or under development for the detection of concealed wildlife contraband at international ports, including postal services, airlines, road border crossings and maritime routes. Where evidence was deficient, publications detailing the use of methods to uncover other illicit substances, such as narcotics, weapons, human trafficking, explosives, radioactive materials, or special nuclear material, were compiled and assessed for their applicability to the detection of wildlife. The first search identified only four citations related to the detection of wildlife, however the secondary search revealed 145 publications, including 59 journal articles and 86 conference proceedings, describing screening tools for non-wildlife illicit contraband detection. The screening tools uncovered were analysed for potential fitness for purpose for wildlife contraband detection, to evaluate the feasibility of their implementation and their ease of use. The deficiencies evident in terms of resource availability and research efforts targeting wildlife trafficking highlights a potentially substantial national and international security threat which must be addressed.

Indexed as

Animals, WildPangolinsAnimalsHumansPostal ServicePublic HealthWildlife Trade

Identifiers

PMID38568991
PMCPMC10990205

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.