Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39664898›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Utilising a livestock model for wildlife health planning.

Stuart Patterson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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. 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

1 author.

Stuart PattersonWildlife Health, Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health planning provides a structure for the application of epidemiological data to managed populations with the intention of maximising health and identifying targets for intervention. Whilst this is established practice in livestock health, such schemes are rarely applied to free-living wild animal populations. The health of wildlife is important for a variety of reasons including conservation, human health, and ecosystem health, and so it is recommended that a formalised health planning approach be adopted for wildlife, based upon advantages of livestock health schemes identified here. Six key strengths of livestock herd health plans are identified in that these plans are: (1) Outcome driven, (2) Structured and repeatable, (3) They can incorporate both health and welfare considerations and in doing so, establish multidisciplinary management teams, (4) Evidence-based allowing for the prioritisation of key risk factors, (5) Encompassing of both population and individual metrics, and (6) Offer the opportunity for accreditation schemes. The benefits highlighted have implications for both wildlife management and research agendas where the structured format of the health plans will highlight knowledge gaps. Challenges are acknowledged, and it is recognised that livestock health planning cannot simply be copied across to a wildlife context. However, the strengths identified are great enough that it is recommended that wildlife population health planning is developed for active management of individual populations, learning lessons from existing plans.

Indexed as

applied epidemiologyevidence-based practicehealth outcomesknowledge gapsmultidisciplinary teamswildlife health and welfarewildlife health planningwildlife management

Identifiers

PMID39664898
PMCPMC11633042

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.