Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32625537›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2017

Ad hoc method for the assessment on listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Simon More, Anette Bøtner, Andrew Butterworth, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Sandra Edwards, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Margaret Good, Christian Gortázar Schmidt and 19 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Modeling the Accuracy of TwoFrontiers in veterinary science · 2019
    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

29 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
Simon More
Anette Bøtner
Andrew Butterworth
Paolo Calistri
Klaus Depner
Sandra Edwards
Bruno Garin-Bastuji
Margaret Good
Christian Gortázar Schmidt
Virginie Michel
Miguel Angel Miranda
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Mohan Raj
Liisa Sihvonen
Hans Spoolder
Jan Arend Stegeman
Hans-Hermann Thulke
Antonio Velarde
Preben Willeberg
Christoph Winckler
Francesca Baldinelli
Alessandro Broglia
Denise Candiani
Andrea Gervelmeyer
Gabriele Zancanaro
Lisa Kohnle
Joana Morgado
Dominique Bicout
At Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Commission has requested EFSA to assess animal diseases according to the criteria as laid down in Articles 5, 7, 8 and Annex IV for the purpose of categorisation of diseases in accordance with Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) No 2016/429 (Animal Health Law). This scientific opinion addresses the ad hoc method developed for assessing any animal disease for the listing and categorisation of diseases within the Animal Health Law (AHL) framework. The assessment of individual diseases is addressed in distinct scientific opinions that are published separately. The assessment of Articles 5, 8 and 9 criteria is performed on the basis of the information collected according to Article 7 criteria. For that purpose, Article 7 criteria were structured into parameters and the information was collected at parameter level. The resulting fact sheets on the profile and impact of each disease were compiled by disease scientists. A mapping was developed to identify which parameters from Article 7 were needed to inform each Article 5, 8 and 9 criterion. Specifically, for Articles 5 and 9 criteria, a categorical assessment was performed, by applying an expert judgement procedure, based on the mapped information. The judgement was performed by EFSA Panel experts on Animal Health and Welfare in two rounds, individual and collective judgement. The output of the expert judgement on the criteria of Articles 5 and 9 for each disease is composed by the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported.

Indexed as

Animal Health Lawcategorisationdisease impactdisease profilelisting

Identifiers

PMID32625537
PMCPMC7010140
OpenAlexW2731491818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.