ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
Serological response to field rabies vaccination in owned dogs in the immune belt of Peninsular Malaysia.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rabies vaccination is conducted along the northern border of Peninsular Malaysia, but paired field serological data are limited. We analysed routine programme data from 154 owned dogs sampled immediately before vaccination and 30-83 days later (median, 43 days). Rabies virus-neutralising antibody levels were measured using the fluorescent antibody virus neutralisation test. Paired levels in IU/mL were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and benchmark proportions were compared using the exact McNemar test. The proportion with levels ≥ 0.5 IU/mL increased from 72.7% (112/154; 95% confidence interval [CI], 65.2-79.1%) to 98.1% (151/154; 95% CI, 94.4-99.3%; p < 0.001). Three dogs remained below the benchmark. Median levels increased from 1.98 IU/mL (interquartile range [IQR], 0.38-5.92) to 13.5 IU/mL (IQR, 4.5-13.5); the median paired increase was 5.45 IU/mL (bootstrap 95% CI, 3.31-7.25; p < 0.001). Levels increased in 128 dogs, were unchanged in 19 and decreased in seven. Eighty follow-up values equalled the dataset maximum of 13.5 IU/mL, suggesting possible upper-end censoring. Vaccination history identified 99 previously vaccinated dogs and seven recorded as receiving their first vaccination, limiting comparison of these groups. Nearly all dogs retained at follow-up met the serological benchmark. Convenience sampling, incomplete follow-up and uncertain measurement limits restrict inference to this cohort and preclude estimates of population immunity or clinical effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911314What 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.