Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29363572›Full record

ArticleThe Veterinary record2018

Cost distribution of bluetongue surveillance and vaccination programmes in Austria and Switzerland (2007-2016).

Beate Pinior, Clair L Firth, Angelika Loitsch, Simon Stockreiter, Sabine Hutter, Veronika Richter, Karin Lebl, Heinzpeter Schwermer, Annemarie Käsbohrer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Veterinary record, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Epidemiological, Mitigation and Economic Impact of Zoonoses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Barcoding of the GenusPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Beate PiniorInstitute for Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Clair L FirthInstitute for Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4919-7786
Angelika LoitschInstitute for Veterinary Disease Control Mödling, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Mödling, Austria.
Simon StockreiterFederal Ministry of Health, Vienna, Austria.
Sabine HutterInstitute for Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Veronika RichterInstitute for Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Karin LeblDepartment of Biological Safety, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Heinzpeter SchwermerFederal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, Bern, Switzerland.
Annemarie KäsbohrerInstitute for Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bluetongue virus (BTV) is an emerging transboundary disease in Europe, which can cause significant production losses among ruminants. The analysis presented here assessed the costs of BTV surveillance and vaccination programmes in Austria and Switzerland between 2007 and 2016. Costs were compared with respect to time, type of programme, geographical area and who was responsible for payment. The total costs of the BTV vaccination and surveillance programmes in Austria amounted to €23.6 million, whereas total costs in Switzerland were €18.3 million. Our analysis demonstrates that the costs differed between years and geographical areas, both within and between the two countries. Average surveillance costs per animal amounted to approximately €3.20 in Austria compared with €1.30 in Switzerland, whereas the average vaccination costs per animal were €6.20 in Austria and €7.40 in Switzerland. The comparability of the surveillance costs is somewhat limited, however, due to differences in each nation's surveillance (and sampling) strategy. Given the importance of the export market for cattle production, investments in such programmes are more justified for Austria than for Switzerland. The aim of the retrospective assessment presented here is to assist veterinary authorities in planning and implementing cost-effective and efficient control strategies for emerging livestock diseases.

Indexed as

Costs and Cost AnalysisAnimalsAustriaBluetongueCattleCattle DiseasesGoat DiseasesGoatsImmunization ProgramsPopulation SurveillanceRetrospective StudiesSheepSwitzerlandBTVcattle export marketlinear modelprogramme expenses

Identifiers

PMID29363572
PMCPMC5870441

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.