Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25266772›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2015

Evaluation of the sensitivity of faecal sampling for detection of monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium and other Salmonella in cattle and pigs.

M E Arnold, R J Gosling, F Martelli, D Mueller-Doblies, R H Davies

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Genomic diversity ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Bayesian Source Attribution ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M E ArnoldAnimal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA),Sutton Bonington,Loughborough,UK.
R J GoslingDepartment of Bacteriology and Food Safety,AHVLA,New Haw,Addlestone,Surrey,UK.
F MartelliDepartment of Bacteriology and Food Safety,AHVLA,New Haw,Addlestone,Surrey,UK.
D Mueller-DobliesDepartment of Bacteriology and Food Safety,AHVLA,New Haw,Addlestone,Surrey,UK.
R H DaviesDepartment of Bacteriology and Food Safety,AHVLA,New Haw,Addlestone,Surrey,UK.
Animal and Plant Health Agency · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been a rapid rise in the prevalence of cases of monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium (mST) in both humans and farm animals, and it has been found in pigs, cattle and poultry. It is therefore vital to have a good understanding of how to efficiently detect infected farms. The objective of this project was to determine sample type sensitivity in the detection of Salmonella to detect infected groups of animals on both pig (breeder, grower and finisher sites) and cattle (beef and dairy) farms, using data collected from a study investigating farms that were positive for mST, and to explore any variation between different age groups and management practices. A Bayesian approach in the absence of a gold standard was adopted to analyse the individual and pooled faecal sample data collected from each epidemiological group on each of the farms. The sensitivity of pooled sampling depended on the prevalence of infection in the group being sampled, with a higher prevalence leading to higher sensitivity. Pooled sampling was found to be more efficient at detecting positive groups of animals than individual sampling, with the probability of a random sample from a group of animals with 5% prevalence testing positive being equal to 15·5% for immature pigs (3·6% for an individual faecal sample, taking into account the sensitivity and infection prevalence), 7·1% for adult pigs (1·2% for individual sampling), 30% for outdoor cattle (2% for individual sampling) and 34% for indoor cattle (1% for individual sampling). The mean prevalence of each epidemiological group was higher in outdoor farms than indoor for both pigs and cattle (mean within-farm prevalence of 29·4% and 38·7% for outdoor pigs and cattle, respectively, compared to 19·8% and 22·1% for indoor pigs and cattle).

Indexed as

AnimalsBayes TheoremCattleFecesPrevalenceSalmonellaSalmonella Infections, AnimalSalmonella typhimuriumSensitivity and SpecificitySwinesurveillance

Identifiers

PMID25266772
PMCPMC9507225
OpenAlexW2013364252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.