Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31294036›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2019

Individual or Common Good? Voluntary Data Sharing to Inform Disease Surveillance Systems in Food Animals.

Andres M Perez, Daniel C L Linhares, Andreia G Arruda, Kimberly VanderWaal, Gustavo Machado, Carles Vilalta, Juan M Sanhueza, Jerry Torrison, Montserrat Torremorell, Cesar A Corzo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. When Everything Becomes Bigger: Big Data for Big Poultry Production.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  13. Time Farms Stay Naïve for Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

10 authors.

Andres M PerezCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Daniel C L LinharesCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Andreia G ArrudaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Kimberly VanderWaalCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Gustavo MachadoCollege of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.
Carles VilaltaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Juan M SanhuezaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Jerry TorrisonCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Montserrat TorremorellCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Cesar A CorzoCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Livestock producers have traditionally been reluctant to share information related to their business, including data on health status of their animals, which, sometimes, has impaired the ability to implement surveillance programs. However, during the last decade, swine producers in the United States (US) and other countries have voluntarily begun to share data for the control and elimination of specific infectious diseases, such as the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSv). Those surveillance programs have played a pivotal role in bringing producers and veterinarians together for the benefit of the industry. Examples of situations in which producers have decided to voluntarily share data for extended periods of time to support applied research and, ultimately, disease control in the absence of a regulatory framework have rarely been documented in the peer-reviewed literature. Here, we provide evidence of a national program for voluntary sharing of disease status data that has helped the implementation of surveillance activities that, ultimately, allowed the generation of critically important scientific information to better support disease control activities. Altogether, this effort has supported, and is supporting, the design and implementation of prevention and control approaches for the most economically devastating swine disease affecting the US. The program, which has been voluntarily sustained and supported over an extended period of time by the swine industry in the absence of any regulatory framework and that includes data on approximately 50% of the sow population in the US, represents a unique example of a livestock industry self-organized surveillance program to generate scientific-driven solutions for emerging swine health issues in North America.

Indexed as

data sharingepidemiologyporcine reproductive and respiratory syndromesurveillanceUS

Identifiers

PMID31294036
PMCPMC6598744

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.