Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28266576›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Surveillance strategies for Classical Swine Fever in wild boar - a comprehensive evaluation study to ensure powerful surveillance.

Katja Schulz, Marisa Peyre, Christoph Staubach, Birgit Schauer, Jana Schulz, Clémentine Calba, Barbara Häsler, Franz J Conraths

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Effect of culling on individual badgerThe Journal of applied ecology · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Katja SchulzFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Marisa PeyreCentre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique Pour le Développement (CIRAD), Département ES, UPR AGIRs, TA C22/E, Campus International de Baillarguet, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
Christoph StaubachFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Birgit SchauerFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Jana SchulzFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Clémentine CalbaCentre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique Pour le Développement (CIRAD), Département ES, UPR AGIRs, TA C22/E, Campus International de Baillarguet, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
Barbara HäslerRoyal Veterinary College, Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics and Public Health Group Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK.
Franz J ConrathsFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut · DECentre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement · FRRoyal Veterinary College · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surveillance of Classical Swine Fever (CSF) should not only focus on livestock, but must also include wild boar. To prevent disease transmission into commercial pig herds, it is therefore vital to have knowledge about the disease status in wild boar. In the present study, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of alternative surveillance strategies for Classical Swine Fever (CSF) in wild boar and compared them with the currently implemented conventional approach. The evaluation protocol was designed using the EVA tool, a decision support tool to help in the development of an economic and epidemiological evaluation protocol for surveillance. To evaluate the effectiveness of the surveillance strategies, we investigated their sensitivity and timeliness. Acceptability was analysed and finally, the cost-effectiveness of the surveillance strategies was determined. We developed 69 surveillance strategies for comparative evaluation between the existing approach and the novel proposed strategies. Sampling only within sub-adults resulted in a better acceptability and timeliness than the currently implemented strategy. Strategies that were completely based on passive surveillance performance did not achieve the desired detection probability of 95%. In conclusion, the results of the study suggest that risk-based approaches can be an option to design more effective CSF surveillance strategies in wild boar.

Indexed as

AnimalsClassical Swine FeverClassical Swine Fever VirusCost-Benefit AnalysisEpidemiological MonitoringHost-Pathogen InteractionsPopulation SurveillanceSpecimen HandlingSus scrofaSwineSwine Diseases

Identifiers

PMID28266576
PMCPMC5339697
OpenAlexW2592893985

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.