ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2026
Prioritization of zoonoses for health professional knowledge building in Canada.
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGiven the increasing incidence of zoonoses in Canada and globally and the public health implications of these diseases, it is important to build knowledge among human health professionals in Canada on these diseases. To maximize impact in a resource-limited environment, it is critical to identify high priority diseases using an evidence-based approach. This work prioritized non-enteric zoonoses of greatest importance to health professionals in Canada for knowledge building.
methodsA multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach was used. The following steps were applied: (1) identified diseases for prioritization; (2) identified criteria by which to assess diseases; (3) scored diseases against criteria; (4) developed an MCDA tool; (5) weighted criteria according to relative importance; (6) ranked diseases based on relative scores.
resultsFifty-two zoonoses were identified and scored across 11 criteria (572 individual scores). The diseases that ranked in the top third reflected a broad range of domestic and international zoonoses, but held no single common distinguishing factor that would have easily identified them without this approach.
conclusionNo single criterion correlates to a higher priority for any disease, and a wide range of factors impact the rankings. To address the gaps and priorities identified through this work, a system-wide approach to addressing zoonoses through knowledge building is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42804141What 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.