figshare
Browse
DOCUMENT
pone.0229989.s001.docx (12.77 kB)
DATASET
pone.0229989.s002.xlsx (53.31 kB)
DATASET
pone.0229989.s003.xlsx (45.37 kB)
DATASET
pone.0229989.s004.xlsx (34.59 kB)
IMAGE
pone.0229989.s005.tiff (7.08 MB)
DOCUMENT
pone.0229989.s006.pdf (151.68 kB)
1/0
6 files

Identifying the snake: First scoping review on practices of communities and healthcare providers confronted with snakebite across the world

dataset
posted on 2020-03-05, 18:38 authored by Isabelle Bolon, Andrew M. Durso, Sara Botero Mesa, Nicolas Ray, Gabriel Alcoba, François Chappuis, Rafael Ruiz de Castañeda

Background

Snakebite envenoming is a major global health problem that kills or disables half a million people in the world’s poorest countries. Biting snake identification is key to understanding snakebite eco-epidemiology and optimizing its clinical management. The role of snakebite victims and healthcare providers in biting snake identification has not been studied globally.

Objective

This scoping review aims to identify and characterize the practices in biting snake identification across the globe.

Methods

Epidemiological studies of snakebite in humans that provide information on biting snake identification were systematically searched in Web of Science and Pubmed from inception to 2nd February 2019. This search was further extended by snowball search, hand searching literature reviews, and using Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers screened publications and charted the data.

Results

We analysed 150 publications reporting 33,827 snakebite cases across 35 countries. On average 70% of victims/bystanders spotted the snake responsible for the bite and 38% captured/killed it and brought it to the healthcare facility. This practice occurred in 30 countries with both fast-moving, active-foraging as well as more secretive snake species. Methods for identifying biting snakes included snake body examination, victim/bystander biting snake description, interpretation of clinical features, and laboratory tests. In nine publications, a picture of the biting snake was taken and examined by snake experts. Snakes were identified at the species/genus level in only 18,065/33,827 (53%) snakebite cases. 106 misidentifications led to inadequate victim management. The 8,885 biting snakes captured and identified were from 149 species including 71 (48%) non-venomous species.

Conclusion

Snakebite victims and healthcare providers can play a central role in biting snake identification and novel approaches (e.g. photographing the snake, crowdsourcing) could help increase biting snake taxonomy collection to better understand snake ecology and snakebite epidemiology and ultimately improve snakebite management.

History