ArticleScientific reports2025
Robust inference and errors in studies of wildlife control.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gold-standard experiments to deter predators from attacking farm animals.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized, controlled trials (RCT) are seen as the strongest basis for causal inference, but their strengths of inference and error rates relative to other study designs have never been quantified for interventions designed to prevent wildlife damage to property and game. We simulate common study designs from simple correlation to RCT with crossover design. We report rates of false positive, false negative, and over-estimation of treatment effects for five common study designs under various confounding interactions and effect sizes. We find non-randomized study designs mostly unreliable and that randomized designs with suitable safeguards against biases have much lower error rates. One implication is that virtually all studies of lethal interventions against predatory wildlife appear unreliable. Generally, applied fields can benefit from more robust designs against the common confounding effects we simulated.
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.