Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39585343›Full record

ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024

How studies on zoonotic risks in wildlife implement the one health approach - A systematic review.

Caroline Kuhn, Kenneth Mawuta Hayibor, Ama Twumwaa Acheampong, Luciana Salini Abrahão Pires, Magda Clara Vieira Costa-Ribeiro, María Soledad Burrone, Carlos Roberto Vásquez-Almazán, Katja Radon, María Teresa Solis Soto, KAPwildlife-study group

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Antimicrobial Resistance inVeterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Caroline KuhnCenter for International Health at Ludwig-Maximilian-University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Kenneth Mawuta HayiborCenter for International Health at Ludwig-Maximilian-University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Ama Twumwaa AcheampongCenter for International Health at Ludwig-Maximilian-University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
Luciana Salini Abrahão PiresFederal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Magda Clara Vieira Costa-RibeiroFederal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
María Soledad BurroneInstitute of Health Sciences, Universidad de O'Higgins, Rancagua, Chile.
Carlos Roberto Vásquez-AlmazánMuseo de Historia Natural, Escuela de Biología, Universidad San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
Katja RadonCenter for International Health at Ludwig-Maximilian-University Hospital, Munich, Germany.
María Teresa Solis SotoInstitute of Health Sciences, Universidad de O'Higgins, Rancagua, Chile.
KAPwildlife-study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The recent COVID-19 pandemic and the emergence of infectious diseases at the human-animal interface highlight the global challenge of mitigating zoonotic risks. The One Health approach emphasizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, urging for holistic and interdisciplinary strategies in disease prevention. Despite growing interest, the attention to wildlife in pandemic prevention remains limited. This systematic literature review aims to evaluate recent One Health research on zoonotic diseases and wildlife in terms of study design, interdisciplinary collaboration, and participatory approaches. Key questions addressed include the consideration of One Health domains, disciplinary involvement, and the inclusion of non-academic stakeholders. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for primary research papers on zoonotic diseases and wildlife from 2018 to 2023. Eligibility criteria included a focus on wildlife, zoonotic diseases, and adoption of the One Health approach. Results: A total of 228 primary research papers were retrieved. Out of these, 105 studies were included in the review. Few studies integrated human, animal, and environmental domains simultaneously in data collection (4.8 %) and knowledge generation (29.5 %). While extensive knowledge was generated for animal health (97.1 %) and human health (84.8 %), environmental health (34.3 %) remained underrepresented. Laboratory methods predominated (82.9 %), with limited integration of social science methodologies (19 %). The majority were epidemiological studies (86.7 %), yet analytical design within these was sparse (17.1 %). Participation of non-academic stakeholders was limited (36.2 % included non-academics; 3.8 % encompassed participative approaches). Conclusions: The synthesis of the domains human, animal and environmental health remained fragmentary in the studies reviewed. Environmental health is underrepresented and the interdisciplinary involvement of social sciences lacks. Neglecting these fields of competence impedes comprehensive understanding of disease dynamics and hampers effective zoonosis prevention strategies. In result, greater inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, along with participatory approaches, are still needed for advancing One Health research.

Indexed as

Interdisciplinary researchOne healthWild animalsZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID39585343
PMCPMC11582546

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.