Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31075130›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A social cost-benefit analysis of two One Health interventions to prevent toxoplasmosis.

Anita W M Suijkerbuijk, Eelco A B Over, Marieke Opsteegh, Huifang Deng, Paul F van Gils, Axel A Bonačić Marinović, Mattijs Lambooij, Johan J Polder, Talitha L Feenstra, Joke W B van der Giessen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anita W M SuijkerbuijkNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5680-5989
Eelco A B OverNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Marieke OpsteeghNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Huifang DengNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Paul F van GilsNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Axel A Bonačić MarinovićNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Mattijs LambooijNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Johan J PolderNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Talitha L FeenstraNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Joke W B van der GiessenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
G Ardine de WitNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Marie-Josee J MangenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLTilburg University · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the Netherlands, toxoplasmosis ranks second in disease burden among foodborne pathogens with an estimated health loss of 1,900 Disability Adjusted Life Years and a cost-of-illness estimated at €45 million annually. Therefore, effective and preferably cost-effective preventive interventions are warranted. Freezing meat intended for raw or undercooked consumption and improving biosecurity in pig farms are promising interventions to prevent Toxoplasma gondii infections in humans. Putting these interventions into practice would expectedly reduce the number of infections; however, the net benefits for society are unknown. Stakeholders bearing the costs for these interventions will not necessary coincide with the ones having the benefits. We performed a Social Cost-Benefit Analysis to evaluate the net value of two potential interventions for the Dutch society. We assessed the costs and benefits of the two interventions and compared them with the current practice of education, especially during pregnancy. A 'minimum scenario' and a 'maximum scenario' was assumed, using input parameters with least benefits to society and input parameters with most benefits to society, respectively. For both interventions, we performed different scenario analyses. The freezing meat intervention was far more effective than the biosecurity intervention. Despite high freezing costs, freezing two meat products: steak tartare and mutton leg yielded net social benefits in both the minimum and maximum scenario, ranging from €10.6 million to €31 million for steak tartare and €0.6 million to €1.5 million for mutton leg. The biosecurity intervention would result in net costs in all scenarios ranging from €1 million to €2.5 million, due to high intervention costs and limited benefits. From a public health perspective (i.e. reducing the burden of toxoplasmosis) and the societal perspective (i.e. a net benefit for the Dutch society) freezing steak tartare and leg of mutton is to be considered.

Indexed as

AnimalsCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessFood ParasitologyFood QualityFood StorageHumansMeat ProductsNetherlandsToxoplasmosis

Identifiers

PMID31075130
PMCPMC6510435
OpenAlexW2944218217

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.