Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30832676›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

A spatial assessment of Nipah virus transmission in Thailand pig farms using multi-criteria decision analysis.

Weerapong Thanapongtharm, Mathilde C Paul, Anuwat Wiratsudakul, Vilaiporn Wongphruksasoong, Wantanee Kalpravidh, Kachen Wongsathapornchai, Sudarat Damrongwatanapokin, Daniel Schar, Marius Gilbert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Weerapong ThanapongtharmDepartment of Livestock Development (DLD), Bangkok, Thailand. weeraden@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9957-2011
Mathilde C PaulUMR 1225 IHAP, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Toulouse, France.
Anuwat WiratsudakulDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Mahidol University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Vilaiporn WongphruksasoongDepartment of Livestock Development (DLD), Bangkok, Thailand.
Wantanee KalpravidhFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kachen WongsathapornchaiFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sudarat DamrongwatanapokinUSAID Regional Development Mission Asia, Bangkok, Thailand.
Daniel ScharUSAID Regional Development Mission Asia, Bangkok, Thailand.
Marius GilbertSpatial epidemiology Lab. (SpELL), University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Livestock Development · THUNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office · THÉcole Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse · FRFund for Scientific Research · BEMahidol University · THPresident's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief · USStatistics Belgium · BE

Funding

USAID/FAO LOA/RAP/2016/32
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThailand's Central Plain is identified as a contact zone between pigs and flying foxes, representing a potential zoonotic risk. Nipah virus (NiV) has been reported in flying foxes in Thailand, but it has never been found in pigs or humans. An assessment of the suitability of NiV transmission at the spatial and farm level would be useful for disease surveillance and prevention. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), a knowledge-driven model, was used to map contact zones between local epizootic risk factors as well as to quantify the suitability of NiV transmission at the pixel and farm level.

resultsSpatial risk factors of NiV transmission in pigs were identified by experts as being of three types, including i) natural host factors (bat preferred areas and distance to the nearest bat colony), ii) intermediate host factors (pig population density), and iii) environmental factors (distance to the nearest forest, distance to the nearest orchard, distance to the nearest water body, and human population density). The resulting high suitable areas were concentrated around the bat colonies in three provinces in the East of Thailand, including Chacheongsao, Chonburi, and Nakhonnayok. The suitability of NiV transmission in pig farms in the study area was quantified as ranging from very low to medium suitability.

conclusionsWe believe that risk-based surveillance in the identified priority areas may increase the chances of finding out NiV and other bat-borne pathogens and thereby optimize the allocation of financial resources for disease surveillance. In the long run, improvements of biosecurity in those priority areas may also contribute to preventing the spread of potential emergence of NiV and other bat-borne pathogens.

Indexed as

Nipah VirusAnimalsChiropteraDecision Support TechniquesHenipavirus InfectionsHumansRisk AssessmentSwineThailandFlying foxesMCDANipah virusRisk-based surveillanceThailand

Identifiers

PMID30832676
PMCPMC6399983
OpenAlexW2944541368

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.