ArticleJournal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc2024
Retrospective study of laboratory-based surveillance of rabies in wild and domestic animals in the southern United States, 2010-2021.
Article in Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Insights into the occurrence of rabies viruses in multi-species animals based on diagnostic laboratory submissions.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed a retrospective study of all case submissions for the rabies virus (RABV) direct fluorescent antibody test (DFAT) requested of the Tifton Veterinary Diagnostic and Investigational Laboratory (Tifton, GA, USA) between July 2010 and June 2021. Submitted were 792 samples from 23 animal species from 89 counties in Georgia, and 4 neighboring counties in Florida, 1 in South Carolina, and 1 in Alabama. In 13 (1.6%) cases, the DFAT result was inconclusive; 779 (98.4%) cases had a conclusive (positive or negative) test result. Of these 779 cases, 79 (10.1%) tested positive across 10 species. The remaining 700 (89.9%) cases were negative. The main reason for submission for RABV testing was human exposure to a potentially rabid animal in 414 (52.3%) cases. Among the 79 positive cases, 74 (93.7%) involved wildlife; raccoons (51 cases; 68.9%) were the primary host confirmed with RABV infection, followed by skunk and fox (8 cases each; 10.8%), bobcat (5 cases; 6.8%), and bats (2 cases; 2.7%). Only 5 domestic animals (6.3% of the positive cases) tested positive during our study period; one from each of the bovine, canine, caprine, equine, and feline species. Hence, the sylvatic cycle plays the predominant role in circulating RABV infection in our study area.
Indexed as
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.