ArticlePloS one2025
Quantitative risk assessment and interventional recommendations for preventing canine distemper virus infection in captive tigers at selected wildlife stations in Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canine distemper virus (CDV) can cause high morbidity and mortality in large felids and pose a significant threat to the conservation of captive and non-captive tiger (Panthera tigris). This study conducted in Thailand's wildlife stations aimed to assess the risks of CDV introduction to captive tiger populations. A stochastic quantitative risk assessment model was employed to determine the pathways and estimate the risk probabilities through humans, animal reservoirs, and fomites. The final risk probability of entry, obtained from a combination of six entry pathways, indicated that the absence of measures resulted in a relatively high risk at 0.858. The sensitivity analysis identified CDV-contaminated human hands, followed by other CDV-infected wild animals, and CDV-contaminated equipment, as the most influential pathways of CDV spread. Risk probabilities were compared among those without intervention, with routine intervention at wildlife stations, and with full intervention implementation. Implementing all interventions at the captive wildlife stations significantly reduced the risk of CDV introduction. These interventions included control measures such as quarantining and isolating infected animals and providing treatment to reduce infectiousness. Preventive measures included screening tests for healthy individuals for early detection of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic cases, preventing further spread or complications, CDV vaccination campaigns, and promoting hand hygiene among staff and visitors. Environmental interventions involve restricting dogs and cats from accessing tiger enclosures, disinfecting animal transport vehicles, using separate equipment for each cage, etc. Together, these interventions lowered the median risk of CDV introduction to 0.089, representing an 89.6% risk reduction. This approach assessed CDV infection risks and adapted interventions to specific situations at wildlife stations. Consistent implementation of these measures is essential to minimize CDV spread. Wildlife stations must strictly implement these interventions as standard procedures to protect the health of captive tigers.
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.