ArticleThe Veterinary record2015
Economic comparison of the monitoring programmes for bluetongue vectors in Austria and Switzerland.
Article in The Veterinary record, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the impact of mitigation measures on cattle movement patterns in Austria: bluetongue virus outbreaks as a case study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Review state-of-the-art of output-based methodological approaches for substantiating freedom from infection.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
- PredictingInsects · 2023Article
- Emergence dynamics of adult Culicoides biting midges at two farms in south-east England.Parasites & vectors · 2022Article
- Epidemiological, Mitigation and Economic Impact of Zoonoses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- An updated review on bluetongue virus: epidemiology, pathobiology, and advances in diagnosis and control with special reference to India.The veterinary quarterly · 2020Review
- Modelling the monthly abundance of Culicoides biting midges in nine European countries using Random Forests machine learning.Parasites & vectors · 2020Article
- Economic Impact of a Bluetongue Serotype 8 Epidemic in Germany.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Monthly variation in the probability of presence of adult Culicoides populations in nine European countries and the implications for targeted surveillance.Parasites & vectors · 2018Article
- Evaluating the most appropriate pooling ratio for EDTA blood samples to detect Bluetongue virus using real-time RT-PCR.Veterinary microbiology · 2018Article
- Cost distribution of bluetongue surveillance and vaccination programmes in Austria and Switzerland (2007-2016).The Veterinary record · 2018Article
- Spatial and temporal variation in the abundance of Culicoides biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) in nine European countries.Parasites & vectors · 2018Article
- Outdoor and indoor monitoring of livestock-associated Culicoides spp. to assess vector-free periods and disease risks.BMC veterinary research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the bluetongue virus serotype 8 (BTV-8) outbreak in 2006, vector monitoring programmes (according to EU regulation 1266/2007) were implemented by European countries to obtain information on the spatial distribution of vectors and the vector-free period. This study investigates the vector monitoring programmes in Austria and Switzerland by performing a retrospective cost analysis for the period 2006-2010. Two types of costs were distinguished: costs financed directly via the national bluetongue programmes and costs contributed in-kind by the responsible institutions and agricultural holdings. The total net costs of the monitoring programme in Austria amounted to €1,415,000, whereby in Switzerland the costs were valued at €94,000. Both countries followed the legislation complying with requirements, but differed in regard to sampling frequency, number of trap sites and sampling strategy. Furthermore, the surface area of Austria is twice the area of Switzerland although the number of ruminants is almost the same in both countries. Thus, for comparison, the costs were normalised with regard to the sampling frequency and the number of trap sites. Resulting costs per trap sample comprised €164 for Austria and €48 for Switzerland. In both countries, around 50 per cent of the total costs can be attributed to payments in-kind. The benefit of this study is twofold: first, veterinary authorities may use the results to improve the economic efficiency of future vector monitoring programmes. Second, the analysis of the payment in-kind contribution is of great importance to public authorities as it makes the available resources visible and demonstrates how they have been used.
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.