Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34350229›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Existence and Quality of Data on Control Programs for EU Non-regulated Cattle Diseases: Consequences for Estimation and Comparison of the Probability of Freedom From Infection.

Egle Rapaliute, Annika van Roon, Gerdien van Schaik, Inge Santman-Berends, Xhelil Koleci, Madalina Mincu, Jörn Gethmann, Beate Conrady, Tanja Knific, Jaka Jakob Hodnik and 27 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

37 authors at 20 institutions in 27 countries.

Egle RapaliuteDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Annika van RoonDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Unit Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Gerdien van SchaikDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Unit Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Inge Santman-BerendsDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Unit Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Xhelil KoleciFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Agricultural University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania.
Madalina MincuResearch and Development Institute for Bovine Balotesti, Ploiesti, Romania.
Jörn GethmannInstitute of Epidemiology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Greifswald, Germany.
Beate ConradyUnit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Tanja KnificVeterinary Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Jaka Jakob HodnikVeterinary Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
John BerezowskiVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Luís Pedro CarmoVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Aurélien MadouasseINRAE, Oniris, BIOEPAR, Nantes, France.
Attila TarpaiSection of Epidemiology, Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Oslo, Norway.
Anton GerilovychInstitute for Experimental and Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Kharkiv, Ukraine.
Alvydas MalakauskasDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Blagica SekovskaFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, North Macedonia.
Christine FourichonINRAE, Oniris, BIOEPAR, Nantes, France.
Emmanouil KalaitzakisClinic of Farm Animals, School of Veterinary Medicine, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Franz-Ferdinand RochUnit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Hans HoueDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Katarzyna DudekDepartment of Cattle and Sheep Diseases, National Veterinary Research Institute, Pulawy, Poland.
Kerli MõtusInstitute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia.
László ÓzsváriDepartment of Veterinary Forensics and Economics, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, Budapest, Hungary.
Lina CostaPolytechnic Institute of Portalegre, Praça Do Município 11, Portalegre, Portugal.
Maria Guelbenzu-GonzaloAnimal Health Ireland, Carrick-on-Shannon, Ireland.
Madeleine K HenryEpidemiology Research Unit, Department of Veterinary and Animal Science, Northern Faculty, Scotland's Rural College, Inverness, United Kingdom.
Mentor AlishaniVeterinary Department of the Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary, University of Prishtina, Prishtina, Kosovo.
Nicola PozzatoIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Petter HoppSection of Epidemiology, Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Oslo, Norway.
Ramon JusteDepartment of Animal Health, NEIKER-Basque Institute for Agricultural Research and Development, Arkaute, Spain.
Sam StrainAnimal Health and Welfare Northern Ireland, Dungannon, United Kingdom.
Rene MandelikDepartment of Epizootiology, Parasitology and Protection of One Health, University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy, Kosice, Slovakia.
Štefan VilčekDepartment of Epizootiology, Parasitology and Protection of One Health, University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy, Kosice, Slovakia.
Tiina AutioVeterinary Bacteriology and Pathology Unit, Finnish Food Authority, Kuopio, Finland.
Lena-Mari TamminenDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Céline FaverjonAusvet Europe, Lyon, France.
Animal Health Ireland · IELithuanian University of Health Sciences · LTNorwegian Veterinary Institute · NOUniversity of Bern · CHUniversity of Ljubljana · SIUniversity of Veterinary Medicine in Košice · SKUtrecht University · NLAgricultural University of Tirana · ALAristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRAusvet (Australia) · AUBiologie Epidémiologie et Analyse de Risque en santé animaleComplexity Science Hub Vienna · ATDe Gezondheidsdienst voor Dieren · NLEstonian University of Life Sciences · EEFinnish Food Authority · FIFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut · DEIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie · ITIT University of Copenhagen · DKNational Research Development Institute for Animal Biology and Nutrition · RONational Scientific Center "Institute of Experimental and Clinical Veterinary Medicine" · UA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some European countries have successfully implemented country-specific control programs (CPs) for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated or are regulated only to a limited extent at the European Union (EU) level. Examples of such diseases include bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR), and Johne's disease (JD). The CPs vary between countries in the design and quality of collected data as well as methods used to detect infection and estimate prevalence or probability of freedom from infection. Differences in disease status between countries and non-standardized approaches to assess freedom from infection pose a risk for countries with CPs for non-regulated diseases as infected animals may influence the progress of the disease control or eradication program. The implementation of output-based standards allows estimation and comparison of the probability of freedom for non-regulated cattle diseases in European countries. The aim of the current study was to assess the existence and quality of data that could be used for estimating freedom from infection in European countries. The online data collection tool was sent to 32 countries participating in the SOUND control COST Action and was completed by 24 countries. Data on cattle demographics and data from CPs of IBR and BVD exist in more than 50% of the response countries. However, data describing risk factors and CP of JD was reported as existing in <25% of the countries. The overall quality of data in the sections on demographics and CPs of IBR and BVD were evaluated as "good", but risk factors and JD data were mostly evaluated as "fair." Data quality was considered less good mainly due to two quality criteria: accessibility and accuracy. The results of this study show that the quantity and quality of data about cattle populations and CPs are relatively similar in many surveyed countries. The outcome of this work provides an overview of the current situation in the European countries regarding data on EU non-regulated cattle diseases and will further assist in the development and implementation of output-based standards.

Indexed as

animal health datacattlecontrol programsnon-regulated diseasesoutput-basedproof of freedom

Identifiers

PMID34350229
PMCPMC8328145
OpenAlexW3184405051

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.