ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2025
The Deadly Details: How Clear and Complete Are Publicly Available Sources of Human Rabies Information?
Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Japanese Encephalitis Vaccine Decision Aid for Travelers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Post-COVID-19 Rabies Surveillance and Risk Factors in Rural Eastern Cape, South Africa: A One Health Perspective.Infectious disease reports · 2026Article
- Privacy policies for FDA-authorized or FDA-recognized digital therapeutics impose high digital health literacy demands: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Rabies control via co-creation: A model for sustainable one health interventions.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Global Perspectives on Rabies Control and Elimination: A Scoping Review of Dog Owners' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human rabies is preventable but almost always fatal once symptoms appear, causing 59,000 global deaths each year. Limited awareness and inconsistent access to post-exposure prophylaxis hinder prevention efforts. To identify gaps and opportunities for improvement in online rabies information, we assessed the readability, understandability, actionability, and completeness of online public rabies resources from government and health agencies in Australia and similar countries, with the aim of identifying gaps and opportunities for improvement. We identified materials via Google and public health agency websites, assessing readability using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index and understandability and actionability with the Patient Education Materials Tool for Print materials (PEMAT-P). Completeness was assessed using a framework focused on general and vaccine-specific rabies information. An analysis of 22 resources found a median readability of grade 13 (range: 10-15), with a mean understandability of 66% and mean actionability of 60%; both below recommended thresholds. Mean completeness was 79% for general rabies information and 36% for vaccine-specific information. Visual aids were under-utilised, and critical vaccine-specific information was often lacking. These findings highlight significant barriers in rabies information for the public, with most resources requiring a high literacy level and lacking adequate understandability and actionability. Improving readability, adding visual aids, and enhancing vaccine-related content could improve accessibility and support wider prevention efforts.
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.