ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Biosafety of rabies virus and related lyssaviruses: Risks, precautions, and knowledge gaps in diagnostic and research laboratories.
Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lyssaviruses cause rabies in mammals, a viral encephalomyelitis that is almost always fatal once clinical symptoms develop and can be transmitted to humans. Given this high fatality rate, strict biosafety measures are essential during laboratory handling of potentially infectious materials. This review critically assesses current biosafety practices in rabies diagnostic and research laboratories by examining principal risk factors, transmission pathways, and the effectiveness of existing preventive measures. We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on biosafety risks associated with handling rabies virus and related lyssaviruses, including the use of personal protective equipment, sample handling procedures, and chemical and physical methods for virus inactivation. Particular attention was given to documented cases of laboratory-acquired rabies and their implications for laboratory safety. Although laboratory-acquired infections remain rare, their occurrence highlights important gaps in current biosafety practices. The effectiveness of disinfection and inactivation methods varies widely, especially in resource-limited settings, and key diagnostic procedures, such as the direct fluorescent antibody test, require validation under biosafety constraints. Significant knowledge gaps remain regarding infectious dose, the effectiveness of decontamination methods, and diagnostic standardisation. Strengthening evidence-based biosafety protocols and validating inactivation methods are essential to ensure safer rabies diagnostics and to support effective rabies control, particularly in low-resource settings.
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.