Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914502›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2018

The value of necropsy reports for animal health surveillance.

Susanne Küker, Celine Faverjon, Lenz Furrer, John Berezowski, Horst Posthaus, Fabio Rinaldi, Flavie Vial

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

7 authors.

Susanne KükerVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Schwarzenburgstrasse 155, 3097, Liebefeld, Switzerland. susanne.kueker@vetsuisse.unibe.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2202-456X
Celine FaverjonVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Schwarzenburgstrasse 155, 3097, Liebefeld, Switzerland.
Lenz FurrerInstitute of Computational Linguistics, University of Zürich, Andreasstrasse 15, 8050, Zürich, Switzerland.
John BerezowskiVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Schwarzenburgstrasse 155, 3097, Liebefeld, Switzerland.
Horst PosthausInstitute of Animal Pathology, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 122, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Fabio RinaldiInstitute of Computational Linguistics, University of Zürich, Andreasstrasse 15, 8050, Zürich, Switzerland.
Flavie VialVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Schwarzenburgstrasse 155, 3097, Liebefeld, Switzerland.

Funding

Bundesamt für Lebensmittelsicherheit und Veterinärwesen 1.14.03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnimal health data recorded in free text, such as in necropsy reports, can have valuable information for national surveillance systems. However, these data are rarely utilized because the text format requires labor-intensive classification of records before they can be analyzed with using statistical or other software. In a previous study, we designed a text-mining tool to extract data from text in necropsy reports. In the current study, we used the tool to extract data from the reports from pig and cattle necropsies performed between 2000 and 2011 at the Institute of Animal Pathology (ITPA), University of Bern, Switzerland. We evaluated data quality in terms of credibility, completeness and representativeness of the Swiss pig and cattle populations.

resultsData was easily extracted from necropsy reports. Data quality in terms of completeness and validity varied a lot depending on the type of data reported. Diseases of the gastrointestinal system were reported most frequently (54.6% of pig submissions and 40.8% of cattle submissions). Diseases affecting serous membranes were reported in 16.0% of necropsied pigs and 27.6% of cattle. Respiratory diseases were reported in 18.3% of pigs and 21.6% of cattle submissions.

conclusionsThis study suggests that extracting data from necropsy reports can provide information of value for animal health surveillance. This data has potential value for monitoring endemic disease syndromes in different age and production groups, or for early detection of emerging or re-emerging diseases. The study identified data entry and other errors that could be corrected to improve the quality and validity of the data. Submissions to veterinary diagnostic laboratories have selection biases and these should be considered when designing surveillance systems that include necropsy reports.

Indexed as

Data MiningHealth Status IndicatorsAnimalsAutopsyCattleCattle DiseasesFemaleHealth SurveysInformation Storage and RetrievalMaleSoftwareSwineSwine DiseasesSyndromeElectronic necropsy recordsInformaticsSurveillanceText-miningVeterinary

Identifiers

PMID29914502
PMCPMC6006731

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.