ArticlePloS one2020
How sure are you? A web-based application to confront imperfect detection of respiratory pathogens in bighorn sheep.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relationships between host-pathogen population dynamics in wildlife are poorly understood. An impediment to progress in understanding these relationships is imperfect detection of diagnostic tests used to detect pathogens. If ignored, imperfect detection precludes accurate assessment of pathogen presence and prevalence, foundational parameters for deciphering host-pathogen dynamics and disease etiology. Respiratory disease in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) is a significant impediment to their conservation and restoration, and effective management requires a better understanding of the structure of the pathogen communities. Our primary objective was to develop an easy-to-use and accessible web-based Shiny application that estimates the probability (with associated uncertainty) that a respiratory pathogen is present in a herd and its prevalence given imperfect detection. Our application combines the best-available information on the probabilities of detection for various respiratory pathogen diagnostic protocols with a hierarchical Bayesian model of pathogen prevalence. We demonstrated this application using four examples of diagnostic tests from three herds of bighorn sheep in Montana. For instance, one population with no detections of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (PCR assay) still had an 6% probability of the pathogen being present in the herd. Similarly, the apparent prevalence (0.32) of M. ovipneumoniae in another herd was a substantial underestimate of estimated true prevalence (0.46: 95% CI = [0.25, 0.71]). The negative bias of naïve prevalence increased as the probability of detection of testing protocols worsened such that the apparent prevalence of Mannheimia haemolytica (culture assay) in a herd (0.24) was less than one third that of estimated true prevalence (0.78: 95% CI = [0.43, 0.99]). We found a small difference in the estimates of the probability that Mannheimia spp. (culture assay) was present in one herd between the binomial sampling approach (0.24) and the hypergeometric approach (0.22). Ignoring the implications of imperfect detection and sampling variation for assessing pathogen communities in bighorn sheep can result in spurious inference on pathogen presence and prevalence, and potentially poorly informed management decisions. Our Shiny application makes the rigorous assessment of pathogen presence, prevalence and uncertainty straightforward, and we suggest it should be incorporated into a new paradigm of disease monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.