ArticlePloS one2025
Dose response comparison of Nipah virus strains Malaysia and Bangladesh in hamsters exposed by the intranasal or intraperitoneal route.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Phenotypic plasticity of Nipah virus: An underappreciated driver of spillover risk.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026Review
- The Nipah virus threat in India: Epidemiological trends, risk drivers, and lessons for pandemic preparedness.PLoS pathogens · 2026Review
- Efficacy of the nucleoside analog 4'-Fluorouridine against Nipah virus in the Syrian hamster model.PLoS pathogens · 2026Article
- Natural History of Nipah Virus in Hamsters: Strain, Route, and Sex-Associated Variability Characterized Using Large Datasets to Inform Pre-Clinical Study Design.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Strengthening preparedness and response to emerging henipavirus diversity.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Histopathological and immunohistochemical characterization of lesions in the golden Syrian hamster model of Nipah virus infection (Bangladesh strain).Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nipah virus, a zoonotic pathogen, can cause debilitating disease and death in humans. Currently, countermeasures are limited, with several in various stages of testing but none yet FDA-approved for human use. Evaluation of countermeasure candidates requires safety testing in humans, as well as efficacy testing against lethal challenge in animal models. Herein, we describe the characterization and comparison of the intraperitoneal and intranasal Syrian golden hamster models for Nipah virus strains Malaysia and Bangladesh. Overall, the intraperitoneal route of exposure resulted in a more consistent lethal outcome, regardless of virus strain. Therefore, the IP model was subsequently used to evaluate the use of Favipiravir as a potential positive control for future studies investigating NiV countermeasures. In contrast to prior reported results regarding Favipiravir in Nipah virus-infected hamsters, Favipiravir was only fifty percent effective at preventing death following lethal challenge, regardless of Nipah virus strain. The data suggest that Favipiravir is only partially protective against Nipah virus in hamsters, and, thus, would likely not be an ideal candidate as a positive control in future efficacy studies.
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.