Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39761248›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Preventing zoonotic spillover through regulatory frameworks governing wildlife trade: A scoping review.

Raphael Aguiar, Ryan Gray, Eduardo Gallo-Cajiao, Arne Ruckert, Chloe Clifford Astbury, Ronald Labonté, Peter Tsasis, A M Viens, Mary Wiktorowicz

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Wildlife Trade and Genetic Basis of Disease Susceptibility: A Review.International journal of immunogenetics · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

9 authors.

Raphael AguiarSchool of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9171-6113
Ryan GrayDahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eduardo Gallo-CajiaoDepartment of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Arne RuckertAMR Policy Accelerator, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Chloe Clifford AstburyDahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ronald LabontéSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Peter TsasisSchool of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
A M ViensSchool of Global Health, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2379-4523
Mary WiktorowiczSchool of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildlife trade can create adverse impacts for biodiversity and human health globally, including increased risks for zoonotic spillover that can lead to pandemics. Institutional responses to zoonotic threats posed by wildlife trade are diverse; understanding regulations governing wildlife trade is an important step for effective zoonotic spillover prevention measures. In this review, we focused on peer-reviewed studies and grey literature conducted on regulatory approaches that govern domestic and international wildlife trade in order to assess the role of local, national and global-level institutions in the prevention of zoonotic spillover and infection transmission between humans. The five-stage scoping review protocol described by Arksey and O'Malley to map key concepts and main sources and types of evidence available was followed to understand and analyze empirical evidence from peer-reviewed studies and grey literature conducted on regulatory approaches that govern domestic and international wildlife. Sources were included if they discuss at least one of three points: regulatory approaches governing the wild animal trade, including wild animal markets, traditional medicine or exotic pets; regulatory approaches governing importation of wild animals and the international wildlife supply chain; or the role of local, national, and global-level institutions in regulating wild animal trade for food, traditional medicine or exotic pets. A total of 1598 sources were retrieved, from which 32 sources were included in the final review (30 studies + 2 grey literature reports). Based on published literature, regulations governing wildlife trade are inconsistent within and between countries. Organizations regulating wildlife trade may have competing interests, which can lead to fragmentation and a lack in coordination and oversight. National compliance with international regulations can be an issue. Reducing the probability of spillover events in wildlife trade is key to prevent future pandemics. Our results indicate a need for enhanced regulatory harmonization within and between national and supranational regulations. Coordination and collaboration for prevention of zoonotic infection and spillover may be enhanced through future research focused on the effectiveness of timely Information sharing and global- and national- level harmonization of wildlife trade regulations.

Indexed as

Animals, WildCommerceZoonosesAnimalsHumansWildlife Trade

Identifiers

PMID39761248
PMCPMC11703008

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.