Kyle McCreesh, Amanda L Guthrie, Simon Spiro, Stuart Patterson
{"title":"对圈养野生动物物种的发病率和死亡率回顾性研究的系统回顾。","authors":"Kyle McCreesh, Amanda L Guthrie, Simon Spiro, Stuart Patterson","doi":"10.1638/2023-0093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Zoological institutions manage animals for conservation, education, entertainment, and research purposes. Zoological staff have a responsibility to safeguard the welfare of animals in their care. Retrospective morbidity and/or mortality studies (MMSs) can be useful tools to highlight common diseases in captive wildlife populations. There is currently no standardized methodology for conducting MMSs. Variation in the methodology of MMSs, particularly the categorization of diseases, can make comparisons between studies challenging and may limit the applicability of the results. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) compliant systematic review was performed, which identified 67 MMSs describing 146 species of captive wildlife. These MMSs are becoming more common and were predominantly performed on mammals (76/146). Prospective authors are encouraged to perform MMSs on amphibians, birds, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates. The studied animals were mostly managed at institutions in the United States of America (28/67, 41.2%) and Europe (14/67, 20.9%). Classifying individuals into age groups facilitates the identification of disease trends within age classes. Only 22/67 (32.8%) studies cited justification for their age classification; classifications should be based on a referenced source on the breeding biology of the studied species. There is variation in the body systems used by authors and into which system a disease is categorized, which makes study comparisons challenging. Diseases were predominantly categorized by etiology and body system (28/77, 36.4%). Because of its ubiquity, the use of the categorization system employed by the pathology module of the Zoological Information Management System is recommended as a useful standard. This system is imperfect, and amendments to it are suggested. The results and recommendations of this study were discussed with a panel of zoo and wildlife experts; guidelines have been formulated for prospective authors aiming to conduct MMSs in captive wildlife.</p>","PeriodicalId":17667,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RETROSPECTIVE MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY STUDIES ON CAPTIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES.\",\"authors\":\"Kyle McCreesh, Amanda L Guthrie, Simon Spiro, Stuart Patterson\",\"doi\":\"10.1638/2023-0093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Zoological institutions manage animals for conservation, education, entertainment, and research purposes. Zoological staff have a responsibility to safeguard the welfare of animals in their care. Retrospective morbidity and/or mortality studies (MMSs) can be useful tools to highlight common diseases in captive wildlife populations. There is currently no standardized methodology for conducting MMSs. Variation in the methodology of MMSs, particularly the categorization of diseases, can make comparisons between studies challenging and may limit the applicability of the results. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) compliant systematic review was performed, which identified 67 MMSs describing 146 species of captive wildlife. These MMSs are becoming more common and were predominantly performed on mammals (76/146). Prospective authors are encouraged to perform MMSs on amphibians, birds, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates. The studied animals were mostly managed at institutions in the United States of America (28/67, 41.2%) and Europe (14/67, 20.9%). Classifying individuals into age groups facilitates the identification of disease trends within age classes. Only 22/67 (32.8%) studies cited justification for their age classification; classifications should be based on a referenced source on the breeding biology of the studied species. There is variation in the body systems used by authors and into which system a disease is categorized, which makes study comparisons challenging. Diseases were predominantly categorized by etiology and body system (28/77, 36.4%). Because of its ubiquity, the use of the categorization system employed by the pathology module of the Zoological Information Management System is recommended as a useful standard. This system is imperfect, and amendments to it are suggested. The results and recommendations of this study were discussed with a panel of zoo and wildlife experts; guidelines have been formulated for prospective authors aiming to conduct MMSs in captive wildlife.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1638/2023-0093\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1638/2023-0093","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RETROSPECTIVE MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY STUDIES ON CAPTIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES.
Zoological institutions manage animals for conservation, education, entertainment, and research purposes. Zoological staff have a responsibility to safeguard the welfare of animals in their care. Retrospective morbidity and/or mortality studies (MMSs) can be useful tools to highlight common diseases in captive wildlife populations. There is currently no standardized methodology for conducting MMSs. Variation in the methodology of MMSs, particularly the categorization of diseases, can make comparisons between studies challenging and may limit the applicability of the results. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) compliant systematic review was performed, which identified 67 MMSs describing 146 species of captive wildlife. These MMSs are becoming more common and were predominantly performed on mammals (76/146). Prospective authors are encouraged to perform MMSs on amphibians, birds, reptiles, fish, and invertebrates. The studied animals were mostly managed at institutions in the United States of America (28/67, 41.2%) and Europe (14/67, 20.9%). Classifying individuals into age groups facilitates the identification of disease trends within age classes. Only 22/67 (32.8%) studies cited justification for their age classification; classifications should be based on a referenced source on the breeding biology of the studied species. There is variation in the body systems used by authors and into which system a disease is categorized, which makes study comparisons challenging. Diseases were predominantly categorized by etiology and body system (28/77, 36.4%). Because of its ubiquity, the use of the categorization system employed by the pathology module of the Zoological Information Management System is recommended as a useful standard. This system is imperfect, and amendments to it are suggested. The results and recommendations of this study were discussed with a panel of zoo and wildlife experts; guidelines have been formulated for prospective authors aiming to conduct MMSs in captive wildlife.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine (JZWM) is considered one of the major sources of information on the biology and veterinary aspects in the field. It stems from the founding premise of AAZV to share zoo animal medicine experiences. The Journal evolved from the long history of members producing case reports and the increased publication of free-ranging wildlife papers.
The Journal accepts manuscripts of original research findings, case reports in the field of veterinary medicine dealing with captive and free-ranging wild animals, brief communications regarding clinical or research observations that may warrant publication. It also publishes and encourages submission of relevant editorials, reviews, special reports, clinical challenges, abstracts of selected articles and book reviews. The Journal is published quarterly, is peer reviewed, is indexed by the major abstracting services, and is international in scope and distribution.
Areas of interest include clinical medicine, surgery, anatomy, radiology, physiology, reproduction, nutrition, parasitology, microbiology, immunology, pathology (including infectious diseases and clinical pathology), toxicology, pharmacology, and epidemiology.