Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33735292›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Simulating the next steps in badger control for bovine tuberculosis in England.

Graham C Smith, Richard Budgey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Graham C SmithNational Wildlife Management Centre, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9897-6794
Richard BudgeyNational Wildlife Management Centre, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Sand Hutton, York, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Industry-led culling of badgers has occurred in England to reduce the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle for a number of years. Badger vaccination is also possible, and a move away from culling was "highly desirable" in a recent report to the UK government. Here we used an established simulation model to examine badger control option in a post-cull environment in England. These options included no control, various intermittent culling, badger vaccination and use of a vaccine combined with fertility control. The initial simulated cull led to a dramatic reduction in the number of infected badgers present, which increased slowly if there was no further badger management. All three approaches led to a further reduction in the number of infected badgers, with little to choose between the strategies. We do note that of the management strategies only vaccination on its own leads to a recovery of the badger population, but also an increase in the number of badgers that need to be vaccinated. We conclude that vaccination post-cull, appears to be particularly effective, compared to vaccination when the host population is at carrying capacity.

Indexed as

Animal CullingAnimalsCattleComputer SimulationDisease ReservoirsEnglandIncidenceModels, StatisticalMustelidaeMycobacterium bovisPopulation ControlTuberculosis, BovineVaccination

Identifiers

PMID33735292
PMCPMC7971561

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.