Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29922682›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2018

Comparison of Alternative Meat Inspection Regimes for Pigs From Non-Controlled Housing - Considering the Cost of Error.

Rikke Koch Hansen, Lisbeth Harm Nielsen, Mahmoud El Tholth, Barbara Haesler, Alessandro Foddai, Lis Alban

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Rikke Koch HansenDepartment for Food Safety and Veterinary Issues, Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lisbeth Harm NielsenDepartment for Food Safety and Veterinary Issues, Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mahmoud El TholthDepartment of Economics, School of Arts and Social Sciences, City University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Barbara HaeslerVeterinary Epidemiology Economics and Public Health Group, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, United Kingdom.
Alessandro FoddaiDepartment of Epidemiological Sciences, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, United Kingdom.
Lis AlbanDepartment for Food Safety and Veterinary Issues, Danish Agriculture & Food Council, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Denmark has not had cases of bovine tuberculosis (bovTB) for more than 30 years but is obliged by trade agreements to undertake traditional meat inspection (TMI) of finisher pigs from non-controlled housing to detect bovTB. TMI is associated with higher probability of detecting bovTB but is also more costly than visual-only inspection (VOI). To identify whether VOI should replace TMI of finisher pigs from non-controlled housing, the cost of error - defined here as probability of overlooking infection and associated economic costs - should be assessed and compared with surveillance costs. First, a scenario tree model was set up to assess the ability of detecting bovTB in an infected herd (

Indexed as

cost of errorearly warningmeat inspectionMycobacterium bovisoutdoor productionpigssurveillance

Identifiers

PMID29922682
PMCPMC5996861

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.