Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32645097›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Optimal surveillance against foot-and-mouth disease: A sample average approximation approach.

Tom Kompas, Pham Van Ha, Hoa-Thi-Minh Nguyen, Graeme Garner, Sharon Roche, Iain East

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Tom KompasCentre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, School of Biosciences and School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0665-0966
Pham Van HaAustralian Centre for Biosecurity and Environmental Economics, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Hoa-Thi-Minh NguyenCrawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Graeme GarnerDepartment of Agriculture, Animal Health Epidemiology, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Sharon RocheDepartment of Agriculture, Animal Health Epidemiology, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Iain EastDepartment of Agriculture, Animal Health Epidemiology, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decisions surrounding the presence of infectious diseases are typically made in the face of considerable uncertainty. However, the development of models to guide these decisions has been substantially constrained by computational difficulty. This paper focuses on the case of finding the optimal level of surveillance against a highly infectious animal disease where time, space and randomness are fully considered. We apply the Sample Average Approximation approach to solve our problem, and to control model dimension, we propose the use of an infection tree model, in combination with sensible 'tree-pruning' and parallel processing techniques. Our proposed model and techniques are generally applicable to a number of disease types, but we demonstrate the approach by solving for optimal surveillance levels against foot-and-mouth disease using bulk milk testing as an active surveillance protocol, during an epidemic, among 42,279 farms, fully characterised by their location, livestock type and size, in the state of Victoria, Australia.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAnimalsAustraliaDisease OutbreaksFoot-and-Mouth DiseaseFoot-and-Mouth Disease VirusLivestockPopulation SurveillanceRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID32645097
PMCPMC7347195

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.