Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36167621›Full record

ArticleIrish veterinary journal2022

Irish farmers' interactions with regional veterinary laboratories- reasons, results, reactions: a survey.

Aideen Kennedy, Ian Hogan, Rebecca Froehlich, Shane McGettrick, Cosme Sánchez-Miguel, Micheál Casey, Maresa Sheehan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Irish veterinary journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Real-time pathologist-assisted field postmortem examinations of beef cattle.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aideen KennedyKilkenny Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Kilkenny, Ireland. aideen.kennedy@agriculture.gov.ie.
Ian HoganLimerick Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Limerick, Ireland.
Rebecca FroehlichSligo Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Sligo, Ireland.
Shane McGettrickSligo Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Sligo, Ireland.
Cosme Sánchez-MiguelCork Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Cork, Ireland.
Micheál CaseyRegional Veterinary Laboratories Division, Backweston Campus, Department Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Celbridge, Kildare, Ireland.
Maresa SheehanKilkenny Regional Veterinary Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Kilkenny, Ireland.
Sligo University Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnimal health surveillance is important in ensuring optimal animal health and welfare. Monitoring of diagnostic submissions, including post-mortem examination of carcasses, at the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine laboratories, provides the basis for this type of passive surveillance in Ireland. The process requires engagement from veterinarians and farmers from all sectors of the agricultural spectrum. This study aims to identify the reasons why farmers engaged in dairy, beef, sheep, and mixed farming enterprises submit carcasses or not to the Regional Veterinary Laboratories.

resultsSurveys were distributed in hard copy format at Regional Veterinary Laboratories, and fifty Teagasc facilitated farmer discussion groups. There were 1179 responses collected in 54 locations. The top reasons participants submitted to the laboratories were 1) to guide treatment/ vaccination, 2) fear of a contagious disease, and 3) if their veterinarian advised them to. The top reasons for not submitting were 1) the vet making a diagnosis on the farm, 2) the distance from the laboratory, and 3) lack of time and labour. Implementation of vaccination protocols was the main change implemented based on results, followed by management changes and the use of different treatments, e.g., switching from antibiotic to parasite treatment. Sheep enterprises were more likely than dairy to choose distance and cost as a reason not to submit. Dairying enterprises were more likely than other enterprise types to submit if they feared a contagious or zoonotic disease.

conclusionPositively, this survey shows the desire of participants to submit to the laboratories to guide treatment and vaccination protocols, potentially indicating that positive engagement between stakeholders and the RVLs will help promote optimal animal health and promote responsible antimicrobial use. Results also show the critical role of veterinarians in continued disease surveillance on farms. Maintaining engagement with all farming sectors will be essential in promoting successful animal health surveillance.

Indexed as

Animal healthDisease surveillanceLaboratory submissionsPost-mortem examination

Identifiers

PMID36167621
PMCPMC9513898
OpenAlexW4297377507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.