Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23746799›Full record

ArticleEpidemics2013

Implications of within-farm transmission for network dynamics: consequences for the spread of avian influenza.

Sema Nickbakhsh, Louise Matthews, Jennifer E Dent, Giles T Innocent, Mark E Arnold, Stuart W J Reid, Rowland R Kao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Analysing livestock network data for infectious disease control: an argument for routine data collection in emerging economies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Article
  11. Who acquires infection from whom and how? Disentangling multi-host and multi-mode transmission dynamics in the 'elimination' era.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Infectious disease transmission and contact networks in wildlife and livestock.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sema NickbakhshInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Bearsden Road, G61 1QH, Scotland, UK. sema.nickbakhsh@glasgow.ac.uk
Louise Matthews
Jennifer E Dent
Giles T Innocent
Mark E Arnold
Stuart W J Reid
Rowland R Kao

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of considering coupled interactions across multiple population scales has not previously been studied for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in the British commercial poultry industry. By simulating the within-flock transmission of HPAI using a deterministic S-E-I-R model, and by incorporating an additional environmental class representing infectious faeces, we tracked the build-up of infectious faeces within a poultry house over time. A measure of the transmission risk (TR) was computed for each farm by linking the amount of infectious faeces present each day of an outbreak with data describing the daily on-farm visit schedules for a major British catching company. Larger flocks tended to have greater levels of these catching-team visits. However, where density-dependent contact was assumed, faster outbreak detection (according to an assumed mortality threshold) led to a decreased opportunity for catching-team visits to coincide with an outbreak. For this reason, maximum TR-levels were found for mid-range flock sizes (~25,000-35,000 birds). When assessing all factors simultaneously using multivariable linear regression on the simulated outputs, those related to the pattern of catching-team visits had the largest effect on TR, with the most important movement-related factor depending on the mode of transmission. Using social network analysis on a further database to inform a measure of between-farm connectivity, we identified a large fraction of farms (28%) that had both a high TR and a high potential impact at the between farm level. Our results have counter-intuitive implications for between-farm spread that could not be predicted based on flock size alone, and together with further knowledge of the relative importance of transmission risk and impact, could have implications for improved targeting of control measures.

Indexed as

AgricultureAnimalsDisease OutbreaksFecesHumansInfluenza in BirdsModels, BiologicalPoultryRiskUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID23746799
PMCPMC3694308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.