Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27564417›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Pig Abattoir Inspection Data: Can It Be Used for Surveillance Purposes?

Carla Correia-Gomes, Richard P Smith, Jude I Eze, Madeleine K Henry, George J Gunn, Susanna Williamson, Sue C Tongue

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A Review of Pain Assessment in Pigs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2016
    Review
  18. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carla Correia-GomesEpidemiology Research Unit, Future Farming Systems Research Group, Scotland's Rural College, Kings Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Richard P SmithAnimal and Plant Health Agency, New Haw, Addlestone, Weybridge, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Jude I EzeEpidemiology Research Unit, Future Farming Systems Research Group, Scotland's Rural College, Kings Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Madeleine K HenryEpidemiology Research Unit, Future Farming Systems Research Group, Scotland's Rural College, Kings Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
George J GunnEpidemiology Research Unit, Future Farming Systems Research Group, Scotland's Rural College, Kings Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Susanna WilliamsonAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Rougham Hill, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, United Kingdom.
Sue C TongueEpidemiology Research Unit, Future Farming Systems Research Group, Scotland's Rural College, Kings Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Scotland's Rural College · GBAnimal and Plant Health Agency · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statutory recording of carcass lesions at the abattoir may have significant potential as a resource for surveillance of livestock populations. Food Standards Agency (FSA) data in Great Britain are not currently used for surveillance purposes. There are concerns that the sensitivity of detection, combined with other issues, may make the outputs unreliable. In this study we postulate that FSA data could be used for surveillance purposes. To test this we compared FSA data with BPHS (a targeted surveillance system of slaughtered pigs) and laboratory diagnostic scanning surveillance (FarmFile) data, from mid-2008 to mid-2012, for respiratory conditions and tail bite lesions in pigs at population level. We also evaluated the agreement/correlation at batch level between FSA and BPHS inspections in four field trials during 2013. Temporal trends and regional differences at population level were described and compared using logistic regression models. Population temporal analysis showed an increase in respiratory disease in all datasets but with regional differences. For tail bite, the temporal trend and monthly patterns were completely different between the datasets. The field trials were run in three abattoirs and included 322 batches. Pearson's correlation and Cohen's kappa tests were used to assess correlation/agreement between inspections systems. It was moderate to strong for high prevalence conditions but slight for low prevalence conditions. We conclude that there is potential to use FSA data as a component of a surveillance system to monitor temporal trends and regional differences of chosen indicators at population level. At producer level and for low prevalence conditions it needs further improvement. Overall a number of issues still need to be addressed in order to provide the pig industry with the confidence to base their decisions on these FSA inspection data. Similar conclusions, at national level, may apply to other livestock sectors but require further evaluation of the inspection and data collection processes.

Indexed as

AbattoirsAnimalsAnimal WelfareFood InspectionLivestockPopulation SurveillanceSus scrofaSwineSwine DiseasesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID27564417
PMCPMC5001630
OpenAlexW2510208988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.