Supplementary Table 6 is also available in Excel format here.
| Study category | Location | Reproduction ratio | Transmission rates (95% CI) | Rabies-related parameters (95% CI) | Vaccination coverage (95% upper CL or 95% CI) | Dog ecology parameters Carrying capacity K (dogs.km⁻², 95% CI) Birth rate b (year⁻¹, 95% CI) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mathematical modelling | Memphis & Shelby County, USA | R = 2.334 (1.778 - 2.89, S.E.) |
Critical vaccination coverage: 57.1% (71%) |
Coleman & Dye, 1996 | |||
| Mathematical modelling | Hermosillo, Mexico | R = 1.981 (1.563 - 2.399, 95% S.E.) |
Critical vaccination coverage: 49.5% (64.5%) |
Coleman & Dye, 1996 | |||
| Mathematical modelling | Central Java, Indonesia | R = 1.789 (1.338 - 2.24, 95% S.E.) |
Critical vaccination coverage: 44.1% (62.8%) |
Coleman & Dye, 1996 | |||
| Mathematical modelling | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | R = 1.627 (1.325 - 2.091, 95% S.E.) |
Critical vaccination coverage: 38.5% (55.2%) |
Coleman & Dye, 1996 | |||
| Mathematical modelling | Machakos, Kenya | R = 2.44 (1.52 - 3.36, 95% CI) | Kitala et al., 2002 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | N’Djaména, Chad | R = 1.01 |
dog-to-dog transmission contact-rate (km2.dogs-1.week-1, 95% CI): 0.0807 (0.0804 - 0.0809) dog-to-human transmission contact-rate (km2.dogs-1.week-1, 95% CI): 0.0002 (0.00017 - 0.00024) |
Zinsstag et al., 2009 | |||
| Mathematical modelling | China | R = 2a | Zhang et al., 2011 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | Guangdong, China | R = 1.65a | Hou et al., 2012 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | China | R = 1.03a | Zhang et al., 2012 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | Ngorongoro, Tanzania | R = 1.24 in Ngorongoro |
Dog-to-dog transmission rate (expected number of secondary cases, 95% CI): Ngorongoro : 1.16 (0.85 - 1.54) |
Annual dog vaccination coverage required: Ngorongoro: 39% (67%) |
Fitzpatrick et al., 2012 | ||
| Mathematical modelling | Seregenti, Tanzania | R = 1.18 in Serengeti |
Dog-to-dog transmission rate (expected number of secondary cases, 95% CI): Serengeti: 1.09 (0.98 - 1.21) |
Annual dog vaccination coverage required: Serengeti: 30% (42%) |
Fitzpatrick et al., 2012 | ||
| Mathematical modelling | Australia |
R from 0 to 6.1 (median 1.8) for reactive vaccinationb R from 0 to 6.1 (median 1.7) for reactive cullingb R from 0 to 5.7 (median 1.7) for movement bans between communitiesb |
Dürr et al., 2015 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | Hebei & Fujian provinces, China | R = 1.0319 (Hebei: 0.5477, Fujian: 0.8197)a | Chen et al., 2015 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | Guizhou & Guangxi provinces, China | R = 4.9211 (Guizhou: 1.5998, Guangxi: 6.1905)a | Chen et al., 2015 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | Sichuan & Shaanxi provinces, China | R = 1.5085 (Sichuan: 1.3414, Shaanxi: 1.0061)a | Chen et al., 2015 | ||||
| Interdisciplinary | Bangui, Central African Republic | R median monthly point estimates in the range 0.8 to 1.3 |
Introduction rate (importation.week-1, median, 95% CI): 0.13 (0.07 - 0.27) |
Bourhy et al., 2016 | |||
| Interdisciplinary | N’Djaména, Chad | R = 1.14 |
Dog-to-dog transmission rate (km2.dogs-1.week-1): 0.0292 Dog-to-human transmission rate (transmission.dogs-1.week-1): 2.34e-5 |
Background dog vaccination rate (week-1): 2.96e-3 |
Zinsstag et al., 2017 | ||
| Interdisciplinary | Bangui, Central African Republic | R = 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 - 1.01) |
Rate of importation (importation.year-1, 95% CI): 4.91 (3.60 - 6.65) Rate of unobserved importation (importation.year-1, 95% CI): 2.40 (1.09 - 4.14) |
Cori et al., 2018 | |||
| Interdisciplinary | Yunnan, China | R = 1.05 |
Dog-to-dog transmission rate (transmission.year-1, 95% CI): 6.62 (5.60 - 7.64) Dog-to-human transmission rate (transmission.year-1, 95% CI): 0.0004 (0.0002 - 0.0006) |
Carrying capacity (dogs.km-2, 95% CI): 13.59 (7.80 - 19.37) |
Tian et al., 2018 | ||
| Mathematical modelling | Bishoftu, Ethiopia |
Dog-to-dog transmission (transmission.dogs-1.day-1, 95% CI): 0.46 (0.39-0.47) |
Incubation period (days, 95% CI): 22.5 (19.9 - 24.6) Infectious period (days, 95% CI): 3.13 (2.85 - 3.4) Rabid dog-human bite rate (transmission.dogs-1, 95% CI): 0.5 (0.45 - 0.56) Probability of developing rabies (95% CI): 0.16 (0.15 - 0.17) |
PEP coverage: 0.8 (0.74-0.84) |
Carrying capacity (dogs.km-2, 95% CI): 361 (346 - 367) |
Beyene et al., 2019 | |
| Mathematical modelling | Lemuna-bilbilo, Ethiopia |
Dog-to-dog transmission (transmission.dogs-1.day-1, 95% CI): 0.40 (0.37-0.44) |
Incubation period (days, 95% CI): 21.6 (19.8 - 24.8) Infectious period (days, 95% CI): 3.08 (2.88 - 3.35) Rabid dog-human bite rate (transmission.dogs-1, 95% CI): 0.56 (0.46 - 0.57) Probability of developing rabies (95% CI): 0.16 (0.15 - 0.17) |
PEP coverage: 0.59 (0.45-0.59) |
Carrying capacity (dogs.km-2, 95% CI): 2.6 (41.8 - 45.2) |
Beyene et al., 2019 | |
| Mathematical modelling | Zheijiang, China | R = 1.0114a | Huang et al., 2019 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | Kubin community, Australia | R (1st month) = 2.50 (95% range 1.0 - 7.0) in Kubin communityb | Brookes et al., 2019 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | Saibai community, Australia | R (1st month) = 1.73 (95% range 0 - 6.0) in Saibai communityb | Brookes et al., 2019 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | Warraber community, Australia | R (1st month) = 3.23 (95% range 1.0 - 8.0) in Warraber communityb | Brookes et al., 2019 | ||||
| Mathematical modelling | Central African Republic | R = 1.03 (95% CI: 1.02 - 1.04) |
Annual birth rate (95% CI): 1.59 (1.19 - 1.99) |
Colombi et al., 2020 | |||
| Note: | |||||||
| Abbreviations: CI, Confidence Interval; CL, Confidence Limit; R, reproduction ratio; PEP, Post-Exposure Prophylaxis | |||||||
| a Based on the choice of parameter values | |||||||
| b Simulation study |