ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Epidemiology of wild animal rabies in Namibia from 2001 to 2019: implications for controlling the infection in domestic animals.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends and Burden of Human Rabies in Iran 2012-2021: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Rabies and Pinnipeds Reviewed: Premonitions, Perturbations, and Projections?Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRabies is an acute, fatal zoonosis of mammals that is endemic in Namibia. Wild animals have been implicated as reservoirs of the infection around the world. In this retrospective study, passive surveillance data (2001-2019) for wild animal rabies in Namibia were retrieved from the Directorate of Veterinary Services and analysed. The number, spatiotemporal epidemiology, and clinical presentation of rabies cases were assessed and compared among animal species, land use systems and regions.
resultsThe overall positive rate was 64.8% (1059/1635). Rabies infected 33 out of 52 wild animal species tested. The majority of cases were in Greater Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros) (71.3%, n = 755/1059), followed by the black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas) (17.1%, 181/1059), eland (Taurotragus oryx) (5.1%, 54/1059), and 30 other wild animal species with low infection rates. Most positive cases (72.8%, 771/1059), and infected wild animal species (n = 26) were from commercial farms. Rabies cases were clustered in the central-western regions of the country (Otjozondjupa, n = 373; Khomas, n = 210; Erongo, n = 123; Omaheke, n = 105; and Kunene, n = 154). Local Moran analysis revealed that the Otjozondjupa region was a significant high-risk cluster of rabies (p = 0.0096). The global Moran's I analysis by Monte Carlo permutations confirmed significant positive spatial autocorrelation of overall rabies cases from wild animal species in Namibia (Moran's I = 0.13; p = 0.042). Rabid animals presented the typical clinical signs of rabies. Jackals were responsible for most human and domestic animal bites (80%, 76/95). The number of rabies cases fluctuated over the years, but a clear decline was apparent from 2014 to 2019. The aggregated rabies cases were higher from January to June and lower from July to December.
conclusionsThe results of this study confirm that rabies affects various wild animal species in Namibia, which may act as reservoirs of infection and hinder the control and elimination of dog-mediated rabies. A multi-sector One Health approach towards rabies control anchored on pet vaccination is recommended at Namibia's human-wildlife-livestock interfaces. Innovative strategies for controlling kudu and jackal rabies are required to reduce incidence in the wild.
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.