ArticlePloS one2025
What's in a database? Insights from a retrospective review of penguin necropsy records in Aotearoa New Zealand.
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 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.
- Retrospective multicenter analysis of causes of death in wild mammals in Southern Germany (2019-2023).Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Survey of haemoprotozoa andInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wildlife necropsy databases often provide data for morbidity and mortality studies of free-ranging species, with implicit relevance for conservation goals, as well as domestic animal and human health. Retrospective reviews are a common way to derive insights from such opportunistic data, despite the methodological difficulties of performing these analyses, alongside findings being prone to bias. This study reviews morbidity and mortality data from Sphenisciformes of Aotearoa New Zealand, using records extracted and manually refined from submissions to the national Wildbase Pathology Register. The review corroborates the broader consensus that hoiho (yellow eyed penguin, Megadyptes antipodes) are most commonly diagnosed with infectious/inflammatory disease (43.1%, 422/978 diagnoses), kororā (blue penguin, Eudyptula minor) with traumatic injuries (42.9%, 156/364 diagnoses), and emaciation being a common finding across both species (33.9%, 393/1463 diagnoses). Further, there are marked spatiotemporal trends in submissions, driven primarily by the affected species and the submitting organisations, highlighting the biases within such databases that must be factored into the application of results. Typographical errors, redundancies from synonymous terms, and missing data are captured as barriers to performing manual reviews of free-text data. Overall, this study highlights strengths and limitations of storage and review of wildlife necropsy data while providing insight into threats faced by the penguins of Aotearoa.
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.