Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38904114›Full record

ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2024

WILDbase: towards a common database to improve wildlife disease surveillance in Europe.

Marieke P de Cock, Valérie O Baede, Sara R Wijburg, Sara A Burt, Robert Fna van Tiel, Kim K Wiskerke, Jens Rj van der Post, Wim Hm van der Poel, Hein Sprong, Miriam Maas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2024. 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  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

10 authors.

Marieke P de CockWageningen University and Research, Quantitative Veterinary Epidemiology, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Valérie O BaedeNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Sara R WijburgNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Sara A BurtUtrecht University, Institute for Risk Assessment Science (IRAS), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Robert Fna van TielUtrecht University, Institute for Risk Assessment Science (IRAS), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kim K WiskerkeUtrecht University, Institute for Risk Assessment Science (IRAS), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jens Rj van der PostUtrecht University, Institute for Risk Assessment Science (IRAS), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wim Hm van der PoelWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Hein SprongNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Miriam MaasNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundTo be better prepared for emerging wildlife-borne zoonoses, we need to strengthen wildlife disease surveillance.AimThe aim of this study was to create a topical overview of zoonotic pathogens in wildlife species to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for improvement of wildlife disease surveillance.MethodsWe created a database, which is based on a systematic literature review in Embase focused on zoonotic pathogens in 10 common urban wildlife mammals in Europe, namely brown rats, house mice, wood mice, common voles, red squirrels, European rabbits, European hedgehogs, European moles, stone martens and red foxes. In total, we retrieved 6,305 unique articles of which 882 were included.ResultsIn total, 186 zoonotic pathogen species were described, including 90 bacteria, 42 helminths, 19 protozoa, 22 viruses and 15 fungi. Most of these pathogens were only studied in one single animal species. Even considering that some pathogens are relatively species-specific, many European countries have no (accessible) data on zoonotic pathogens in these relevant animal species. We used the Netherlands as an example to show how this database can be used by other countries to identify wildlife disease surveillance gaps on a national level. Only 4% of all potential host-pathogen combinations have been studied in the Netherlands.ConclusionsThis database comprises a comprehensive overview that can guide future research on wildlife-borne zoonotic diseases both on a European and national scale. Sharing and expanding this database provides a solid starting point for future European-wide collaborations to improve wildlife disease surveillance.

Indexed as

Animals, WildZoonosesAnimalsDatabases, FactualEuropeFoxesHedgehogsHumansMicePopulation SurveillanceRabbitsRatsSciuridaeEpidemiologyErinaceus europaeusMartes foinaOryctolagus cuniculusPublic healthRodentTalpa europaeaVulpes vulpeswildlife database

Identifiers

PMID38904114
PMCPMC11191416

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.