Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25841165›Full record

ArticleThe Veterinary record2015

Economic comparison of the monitoring programmes for bluetongue vectors in Austria and Switzerland.

B Pinior, K Brugger, J Köfer, H Schwermer, S Stockreiter, A Loitsch, F Rubel

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. PredictingInsects · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Epidemiological, Mitigation and Economic Impact of Zoonoses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

B PiniorUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Institute for Veterinary Public Health, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna 1210, Austria.
K BruggerUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Institute for Veterinary Public Health, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna 1210, Austria.
J KöferUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Institute for Veterinary Public Health, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna 1210, Austria.
H SchwermerFederal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, Schwarzenburgstrasse 155, Bern 3003, Switzerland.
S StockreiterFederal Ministry of Health, Radetzkystraße 2, Vienna 1030, Austria.
A LoitschInstitute for Veterinary Disease Control Mödling, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Robert Koch-Gasse 17, Mödling 2340, Austria.
F RubelUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Institute for Veterinary Public Health, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna 1210, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Costs and Cost AnalysisDisease VectorsProgram EvaluationAnimalsAustriaBluetongueCattleCattle DiseasesGoat DiseasesGoatsPopulation SurveillanceRetrospective StudiesSheepSwitzerlandcost analysisCulicoidesreported and unreported costsVector-borne diseases

Identifiers

PMID25841165
PMCPMC4431321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.