ArticleScientific data2025
A minimum data standard for wildlife disease research and surveillance.
Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Counting cases, conserving species: addressing highly pathogenic avian influenza in wildlife.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- The Shared Wildlife Health Information System (SWHIS): An Online Case Management System to Support Wildlife Management.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Molecular detection of relapsing fevermSphere · 2026Article
- Evolutionary history of Jamestown Canyon virus reveals complex multi-vector ecology.Current biology : CB · 2026Article
- Host-virus association databases as tools for understanding viral spillover at varying scales.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Evolutionary history of Jamestown Canyon virus disentangles complex multi-vector ecology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A community-of-practice-built database to support the implementation and operation of national and subnational wildlife health surveillance systems.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Biodiversity science and biosurveillance are fellow travelers.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Article
- Pathogens and planetary change.Nature reviews. Biodiversity · 2025Article
- Enabling near real time use of wildlife necropsy data: Text-mining approaches to derive interactive dashboard displays.PloS one · 2025Article
- Geographically widespread and novel hemotropic mycoplasmas and bartonellae in Mexican free-tailed bats and sympatric North American bat species.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid and comprehensive data sharing is vital to the transparency and actionability of wildlife infectious disease research and surveillance. Unfortunately, most best practices for publicly sharing these data are focused on pathogen determination and genetic sequence data. Other facets of wildlife disease data - particularly negative results - are often withheld or, at best, summarized in a descriptive table with limited metadata. Here, we propose a minimum data and metadata reporting standard for wildlife disease studies. Our data standard identifies a set of 40 data fields (9 required) and 24 metadata fields (7 required) sufficient to standardize and document a dataset consisting of records disaggregated to the finest possible spatial, temporal, and taxonomic scale. We illustrate how this standard is applied to an example study, which documented a novel alphacoronavirus found in bats in Belize. Finally, we outline best practices for how data should be formatted for optimal re-use, and how researchers can navigate potential safety concerns around data sharing.
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.