Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36106431›Full record

ArticleAustralian veterinary journal2022

FMD vaccine allocation and surveillance resourcing options for a potential Australian incursion.

A H Seitzinger, M G Garner, R Bradhurst, S Roche, A C Breed, T Capon, C Miller, S Tapsuwan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australian veterinary journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

A H SeitzingerCSIRO Land and Water, 2 Clunies Ross Street, Black Mountain, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.
M G GarnerCSIRO Land and Water, 2 Clunies Ross Street, Black Mountain, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.
R BradhurstCentre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, School of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
S RocheAustralian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.
A C BreedAustralian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.
T CaponCSIRO Land and Water, 2 Clunies Ross Street, Black Mountain, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.
C MillerAustralian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.
S TapsuwanCSIRO Land and Water, 2 Clunies Ross Street, Black Mountain, Australian Capital Territory, 2601, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8160-3828
CSIRO Land and Water · AUAustralian Government · AUQueensland University of Technology · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Rural R&D for ProfitAustralian producer levies from FMD-susceptible livestock industriesCharles Sturt UniversityCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Australian Animal Disease Spread (AADIS) epidemiological simulation modelling of potential foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in the state of Victoria, Australia examined the targeted use of limited vaccine supplies in combination with varying surveillance resources. Updated, detailed estimates of government response costs were prepared based on state level data inputs of required and available resources. Measures of outbreak spread such as duration and numbers of animals removed through depopulation of infected and vaccinated herds from the epidemiological modelling were compared to summed government response costs. This comparison illustrated the trade-offs between targeted control strategies combining vaccination-to-remove and varying surveillance capacities and their corresponding costs. For this intensive cattle and sheep producing region: (1) Targeting vaccination toward intensive production areas or toward specialized cattle operations had outbreak control and response cost advantages similar to vaccination of all species. The median duration was reduced by 27% and response costs by 11%. (2) Adding to the pool of outbreak surveillance resources available further decreased outbreak duration and outbreak response costs. The median duration was reduced by an additional 13% and response costs declined by an additional 8%. (3) Pooling of vaccine resources overcame the very early binding constraints under proportional allocation of vaccines to individual states with similar reductions in outbreak duration to those with additional surveillance resources. However, government costs rose substantially by over 40% and introduced additional risk of a negative consumer response. Increased knowledge of the outbreak situation obtained from more surveillance led to better-informed vaccination deployment decisions in the short timeframe they needed to be made.

Indexed as

Cattle DiseasesFoot-and-Mouth DiseaseFoot-and-Mouth Disease VirusSheep DiseasesVaccinesAnimalsCattleDisease OutbreaksSheepVaccinationVictoriaVaccinesAADISfoot-and-mouth diseasemodelsurveillancevaccinationvaccine allocation

Identifiers

PMID36106431
PMCPMC9826428
OpenAlexW4295905370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.