Correction to: Rethinking the system of post-exposure prophylaxis against rabies in veterinary practice (Discover Applied Sciences, (2025), 7, 11, (1299), 10.1007/s42452-025-07631-9)

Following the publication of the original article, the authors reported errors in Table 1. There were errors in the information on the parameters, namely: duration of vaccination cycle (4 ID sessions in 1 week), use of rabiesimmunoglobulin (RIG) (Yes), regulatory framework (WHO-SEARO recommended) and recent supporting evidence (Increasing (SEARO, GAVI studies), related to the Human PEP (Essen) and Human PEP (ID route). Moreover, the headings of Standard human PEP (Essen) and Alternative human PEP (ID Route) have been changed to Human PEP (Essen) and Human PEP (ID Route) respectively. The correct Table [1] is displayed below. The texts that have been changed are in bold. The following is the correct Table 1: Comparison of existing post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) protocols and the proposed integrated one health approach for rabies prevention in humans and animals Parameter Human PEP (Essen) Human PEP (ID Route) Traditional Animal PEP Proposed One Health Integrated Approach Route of administration Intramuscular (IM) Intradermal (ID) IM in case of exposure ID for humans; risk-stratified approach for animals Duration of vaccination cycle 4-dose Essen protocol (days 0, 3, 7, and 14) or 3-visit Zagreb protocol (2-1-1 schedule: days 0, 7, and 21) Variable (pre- or post-exposure) Shortened duration based on current scientific evidence Use of rabies immunoglobulin (RIG) Yes, for Category III exposures Not routinely Reserved for high-risk exposures only Cost High (more doses, more visits) Reduced (~ 60% lower cost) High for large-scale animal campaigns Optimized through IBCM and targeted resources Regulatory framework WHO recommended No specific WOAH guidance on PEP in livestock Adapted to local settings with evidence-based justification Veterinary involvement Minimal or absent Minimal Variable Coordinated action (physicians, veterinarians, public health) Recent supporting evidence Extensive (validated efficacy) Limited Emerging (studies from Africa and Asia) Feasibility in low-resource settings Limited High Limited High, with multisectoral support The original article has been corrected.