Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29494696›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Assessing the probability of introduction and spread of avian influenza (AI) virus in commercial Australian poultry operations using an expert opinion elicitation.

Mini Singh, Jenny-Ann Toribio, Angela Bullanday Scott, Peter Groves, Belinda Barnes, Kathryn Glass, Barbara Moloney, Amanda Black, Marta Hernandez-Jover

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Avian infectious bronchitis virus (AIBV) review by continent.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mini SinghThe University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0364-9791
Jenny-Ann ToribioThe University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Angela Bullanday ScottThe University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Peter GrovesThe University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Science, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Belinda BarnesQuantitative Sciences, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Kathryn GlassResearch School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Barbara MoloneyNSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange, NSW, Australia.
Amanda BlackNSW Department of Primary Industries, Menangle, NSW, Australia.
Marta Hernandez-JoverGraham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (An alliance between Charles Sturt University and NSW Department of Primary Industries), Charles Sturt University, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to elicit experts' opinions and gather estimates on the perceived probability of introduction and spread of avian influenza (AI) virus in the Australian broiler and layer industry. Using a modified Delphi method and a 4-step elicitation process, 11 experts were asked to give initial individual estimates for the various pathways and practices in the presented scenarios using a questionnaire. Following this, a workshop was conducted to present group averages of estimates and discussion was facilitated to obtain final individual estimates. For each question, estimates for all experts were combined using a discrete distribution, with weights allocated representing the level of expertise. Indirect contact with wild birds either via a contaminated water source or fomites was considered the most likely pathway of introduction of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) on poultry farms. Presence of a water body near the poultry farm was considered a potential pathway for introduction only when the operation type was free range and the water body was within 500m distance from the shed. The probability that LPAI will mutate to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) was considered to be higher in layer farms. Shared personnel, equipment and aerosol dispersion were the most likely pathways of shed to shed spread of the virus. For LPAI and HPAI spread from farm to farm, shared pick-up trucks for broiler and shared egg trays and egg pallets for layer farms were considered the most likely pathways. Findings from this study provide an insight on most influential practices on the introduction and spread of AI virus among commercial poultry farms in Australia, as elicited from opinions of experts. These findings will be used to support parameterization of a modelling study assessing the risk of AI introduction and spread among commercial poultry farms in Australia.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, WildAustraliaFarmsInfluenza A virusInfluenza in BirdsMedical Laboratory PersonnelPoultrySurveys and QuestionnairesVeterinarians

Identifiers

PMID29494696
PMCPMC5832321

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.