Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27266845›Full record

ArticleEpidemics2016

Decision-making for foot-and-mouth disease control: Objectives matter.

William J M Probert, Katriona Shea, Christopher J Fonnesbeck, Michael C Runge, Tim E Carpenter, Salome Dürr, M Graeme Garner, Neil Harvey, Mark A Stevenson, Colleen T Webb and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluating infectious disease forecasts with allocation scoring rules.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Multiple models for outbreak decision support in the face of uncertainty.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Vote-processing rules for combining control recommendations from multiple models.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

William J M ProbertCenter for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Department of Biology, Eberly College of Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States; Department of Biology and Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, 208 Mueller Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States; School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, United Kingdom. Electronic address: wjp11@psu.edu.
Katriona SheaCenter for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Department of Biology, Eberly College of Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States; Department of Biology and Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, 208 Mueller Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.
Christopher J FonnesbeckDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
Michael C RungeUS Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest Rd, Laurel, MD, United States.
Tim E CarpenterEpiCentre, Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Salome DürrVeterinary Public Health Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
M Graeme GarnerAnimal Health Policy Branch, Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, GPO Box 858, Canberra 2601, ACT, Australia.
Neil HarveyDepartment of Computing and Information Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1.
Mark A StevensonFaculty of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Colleen T WebbDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Marleen WerkmanCentral Veterinary Institute, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Houtribweg 39, 8221 RA Lelystad, The Netherlands; School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, United Kingdom.
Michael J TildesleySchool of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, United Kingdom.
Matthew J FerrariCenter for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Department of Biology, Eberly College of Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.

Funding

Linking models and policy: Using active adaptive management for optimal control of disease outbreaksR01GM105247 · NIGMS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI FERRARI, MATTHEW · 2012 to 2016
$1.3M
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K010972/3Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K010972/4NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM105247
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Formal decision-analytic methods can be used to frame disease control problems, the first step of which is to define a clear and specific objective. We demonstrate the imperative of framing clearly-defined management objectives in finding optimal control actions for control of disease outbreaks. We illustrate an analysis that can be applied rapidly at the start of an outbreak when there are multiple stakeholders involved with potentially multiple objectives, and when there are also multiple disease models upon which to compare control actions. The output of our analysis frames subsequent discourse between policy-makers, modellers and other stakeholders, by highlighting areas of discord among different management objectives and also among different models used in the analysis. We illustrate this approach in the context of a hypothetical foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in Cumbria, UK using outputs from five rigorously-studied simulation models of FMD spread. We present both relative rankings and relative performance of controls within each model and across a range of objectives. Results illustrate how control actions change across both the base metric used to measure management success and across the statistic used to rank control actions according to said metric. This work represents a first step towards reconciling the extensive modelling work on disease control problems with frameworks for structured decision making.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAnimalsDisease OutbreaksFoot-and-Mouth DiseaseDecision makingEpidemiologyFoot-and-mouth diseaseManagementObjectivesOptimisation

Identifiers

PMID27266845
PMCPMC4902768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.