ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2020
Non-discriminatory Exclusion Testing as a Tool for the Early Detection of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Incursions.
Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Buffaloed in Brandenburg: Germany's first brush with foot-and-mouth disease after four decades of freedom.Science advances · 2026Article
- Risk of exotic disease introduction and propagation in the Austrian swine trade network.iScience · 2026Article
- Article
- Proof of Proficiency of Decentralized Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Diagnostics in Germany.Viruses · 2022Article
- Field Observations and Genetic Characterization of Sheep-Associated Malignant Catarrhal Fever in Egypt, 2018.Veterinary sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 14 institutions in 12 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endemic circulation of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in Africa and Asia poses a continuous risk to countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania which are free from the disease. Introductions of the disease into a free region have dramatic economic impacts, especially if they are not detected at an early stage and controlled rapidly. However, farmers and veterinarians have an obvious disincentive to report clinical signs that are consistent with FMD, due to the severe consequences of raising an official suspicion, such as farm-level quarantine. One way that the risk of late detection can be mitigated is offering non-discriminatory exclusion testing schemes for differential diagnostics, wherein veterinarians can submit samples without the involvement of the competent authority and without sanctions or costs for the farmer. This review considers the benefits and limitations of this approach to improve the early detection of FMD in free countries and gives an overview of the FMD testing schemes currently in use in selected countries in Europe and the Americas as well as in Australia.
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.