ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Benefit-cost analysis of raccoon rabies control in Ontario, Canada.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zoonotic diseases, particularly those originating in wildlife, pose significant public health and economic risks. Rabies, a viral zoonosis with near-100% case fatality in humans, is a prime example of such a threat, especially in regions like North America where wildlife-such as raccoons-serve as key reservoirs. This study assesses the economic efficiency of Ontario, Canada's raccoon rabies control program, which combines oral rabies vaccination (ORV), trap-vaccinate-release (TVR), and surveillance strategies. Using a spatial agent-based epidemiological model, the study estimates the benefits and costs of intervention compared to a no-intervention scenario over the period 2015-2025. Benefits were quantified as avoided public health costs, including post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), animal testing (AT), and human exposure investigations (INVT), and converted to 2023 CAD. Results show that the intervention prevented significant economic losses, with benefit-cost ratios ranging from 1.5 to 14.16 depending on assumed rates of intervention necessity, confirming the program's cost-effectiveness. This analysis not only supports continued investment in wildlife rabies control but also provides a scalable economic framework for other zoonotic disease management programs utilizing a One Health approach.
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.