ArticleEpidemiology and infection2015
Evaluation of the sensitivity of faecal sampling for detection of monophasic Salmonella Typhimurium and other Salmonella in cattle and pigs.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial Contamination Risks From Adjacent and Nearby Land: Evidence and Implications for Produce Safety.Journal of food science · 2026Review
- Genomic diversity ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Salmonella enterica subspecies enterica serovar Choleraesuis in a Swedish gilt-producing herd, a case report.Porcine health management · 2023Article
- Bayesian Source Attribution ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- How do pig farms maintain low Salmonella prevalence: a case-control study.Epidemiology and infection · 2018Article
- Evaluation of an enhanced cleaning and disinfection protocol in Salmonella contaminated pig holdings in the United Kingdom.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.