Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38731268›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Programmed Grooming after 30 Years of Study: A Review of Evidence and Future Prospects.

Michael S Mooring

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Real time PCR identification ofOpen veterinary journal · 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

1 author.

Michael S MooringDepartment of Biology, Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, CA 92106, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5678-7995

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1992, an evolutionary model for the endogenous regulation of parasite-defense grooming was first proposed for African antelope by Ben and Lynette Hart. Known as the programmed grooming model, it hypothesized that a central control mechanism periodically evokes grooming so as to remove ectoparasites before they blood feed. The programmed grooming model contrasts with a stimulus-driven mechanism, in which grooming is stimulated by direct peripheral irritation from ectoparasite bites. In the 30+ years since the seminal 1992 paper, 26 studies have provided robust support for the programmed grooming model in ungulate hosts and ticks. In addition, multiple studies from unaffiliated investigators have evaluated the predictions of the model in different host systems (including rodents and primates) and in a variety of other ectoparasites (fleas, lice, and keds). I conducted a tricennial review of these studies to assess the current evidence and arrived at the following three conclusions: (1) tests of the programmed grooming predictions should use a similar methodology to the well-established protocol, so that the results are comparable and can be properly assessed; (2) the predictions used to test the model should be tailored to the biology of the host taxa under investigation; and (3) the predictions should likewise be tailored to the biology of the ectoparasites involved, bearing in mind that grooming has varying degrees of effectiveness, depending on the parasite. Further research is warranted to enhance our understanding of the role of grooming in maintaining the health of wild animals in the face of parasite attacks.

Indexed as

body size principleectoparasiteshabitat principleprogrammed groomingrodentsstimulus-driven groomingtick challenge principleticksungulatesvigilance principle

Identifiers

PMID38731268
PMCPMC11083713

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.