SynthesisPeerJ2026
A comprehensive systematic review of sarcoptic mange diagnostic methods in wildlife.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sarcoptic mange is a parasitic contagious disease that can lead to significant declines in wildlife populations. To identify the most used methods for diagnosing mange in free-ranging wildlife species, a systematic review was conducted across multiple databases: Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest Central and CABI. Citation screening was performed using the web-based platform, Covidence. A customized data extraction form, developed by the authors, was used to collect relevant information. This information was later exported and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. The objectives of this systematic review were to identify the most used detection methods for sarcoptic mange in wildlife globally over the past 30 years, classify them into invasive and non-invasive categories and provide an updated overview of related adjunct techniques and the broader scientific literature on mange detection and documentation in free-ranging animals. A total of 228 studies were analyzed and categorized into two groups-non-invasive and invasive methods. Non-invasive methods (visual observation, camera trapping, spotlighting, detector dogs and infrared thermography) do not require restraining of animals. Invasive methods (skin scraping, molecular diagnosis using mite isolation and polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serological diagnosis using Enzyme Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA), histological analysis and immunohistochemistry) typically require taking samples from the animals and clinical or laboratory infrastructure. Across all diagnostic methods, visual observation was the most widely used technique, followed by skin scraping as the second most frequently applied method for confirming sarcoptic mange. Non-invasive approaches like spotlighting and camera traps provided valuable population-level insights without direct animal contact, though laboratory methods such as PCR, ELISA, and histological analysis offered greater accuracy at higher costs. We recommend a combined approach, starting with non-invasive methods to assess overall population health before using invasive techniques on selected animals for definitive diagnosis, with advanced technologies expected to enhance long-range detection capabilities in the future.
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.