ArticleTropical animal health and production2020
Investigation of Cysticercosis bovis prevalence using passive abattoir post-mortem inspection and active administration of structured non-participatory questionnaire to farmers in Botswana.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most government published statistics of C. bovis prevalence in Botswana emanate mainly from records available at the Botswana Meat Commission (BMC), the country's national export abattoir. Although BMC slaughters 44% of Botswana's annual cattle slaughter, prevalence data arising from BMC does not reflect prevalence from lower throughput abattoirs and potential hotspots. Thus, reporting national prevalence rate using solely BMC statistics may not be very informative and reflective of the bigger picture. It therefore became imperative to probe prevalence of bovine cysticercosis using a cross-sectional study through passive abattoir inspection, covering a wider scope (more regions) and some lower throughput abattoirs previously not accounted for. Furthermore, non-participatory interview using structured questionnaires was employed to actively elicit prevalence information directly from meat industry stake holders. Prevalence arising from survey was used to compare and query results from statutory (traditional) passive abattoir method. Abattoir prevalence was 17.17% (SE = 1.70027), and survey prevalence was 42.35%; both of which were higher than published prevalence of 13.5% and BMC prevalence of 10% (SE = 0.006576). Survey method was more holistic than passive abattoir method, by covering more frontiers thus yielding higher prevalence. At p = 025, abattoir and survey prevalence were significantly different from each other. In addition to delimitating novel hotspots in Botswana, this study showed significant difference, p = 0.002 in prevalence within districts and regions. Kalagadi district's prevalence differed significantly from other districts: differed from North East at p = 0.042, Central district at p = 0.002 and Ghanzi at p = 0.004. The results which arise from this methodological approach have been able to provide a more all-inclusive and reliable prevalence rate.
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.