Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38550781›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Review state-of-the-art of output-based methodological approaches for substantiating freedom from infection.

Eleftherios Meletis, Beate Conrady, Petter Hopp, Thibaut Lurier, Jenny Frössling, Thomas Rosendal, Céline Faverjon, Luís Pedro Carmo, Jaka Jakob Hodnik, László Ózsvári and 10 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

20 authors.

Eleftherios Meletis *Department of Public and One Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Karditsa, Greece.
Beate Conrady *Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Petter HoppNorwegian Veterinary Institute, Ås, Norway.
Thibaut LurierUniversité de Lyon, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR EPIA, Marcy l'Etoile, France.
Jenny FrösslingDepartment of Disease Control and Epidemiology, National Veterinary Institute (SVA) Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden.
Thomas RosendalDepartment of Disease Control and Epidemiology, National Veterinary Institute (SVA) Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden.
Céline FaverjonAusvet Europe, Lyon, France.
Luís Pedro CarmoNorwegian Veterinary Institute, Ås, Norway.
Jaka Jakob HodnikClinic for Reproduction and Large Animals-Section for Ruminants, Veterinary Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
László ÓzsváriDepartment of Veterinary Forensics and Economics, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, Budapest, Hungary.
Polychronis KostoulasDepartment of Public and One Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Karditsa, Greece.
Gerdien van SchaikRoyal GD, Deventer, Netherlands.
Arianna CominDepartment of Disease Control and Epidemiology, National Veterinary Institute (SVA) Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mirjam NielenDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Unit Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Tanja KnificInstitute of Food Safety, Feed and Environment, Veterinary Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Jana SchulzInstitute of Epidemiology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Greifswald, Germany.
Sabina Šerić-HaračićFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Christine FourichonOniris, INRAE, BIOEPAR, Nantes, France.
Inge Santman-BerendsRoyal GD, Deventer, Netherlands.
Aurélien MadouasseOniris, INRAE, BIOEPAR, Nantes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A wide variety of control and surveillance programmes that are designed and implemented based on country-specific conditions exists for infectious cattle diseases that are not regulated. This heterogeneity renders difficult the comparison of probabilities of freedom from infection estimated from collected surveillance data. The objectives of this review were to outline the methodological and epidemiological considerations for the estimation of probabilities of freedom from infection from surveillance information and review state-of-the-art methods estimating the probabilities of freedom from infection from heterogeneous surveillance data. Substantiating freedom from infection consists in quantifying the evidence of absence from the absence of evidence. The quantification usually consists in estimating the probability of observing no positive test result, in a given sample, assuming that the infection is present at a chosen (low) prevalence, called the design prevalence. The usual surveillance outputs are the sensitivity of surveillance and the probability of freedom from infection. A variety of factors influencing the choice of a method are presented; disease prevalence context, performance of the tests used, risk factors of infection, structure of the surveillance programme and frequency of testing. The existing methods for estimating the probability of freedom from infection are scenario trees, Bayesian belief networks, simulation methods, Bayesian prevalence estimation methods and the STOC free model. Scenario trees analysis is the current reference method for proving freedom from infection and is widely used in countries that claim freedom. Bayesian belief networks and simulation methods are considered extensions of scenario trees. They can be applied to more complex surveillance schemes and represent complex infection dynamics. Bayesian prevalence estimation methods and the STOC free model allow freedom from infection estimation at the herd-level from longitudinal surveillance data, considering risk factor information and the structure of the population. Comparison of surveillance outputs from heterogeneous surveillance programmes for estimating the probability of freedom from infection is a difficult task. This paper is a 'guide towards substantiating freedom from infection' that describes both all assumptions-limitations and available methods that can be applied in different settings.

Indexed as

freedom-from-infectioninfectious-diseasesoutput-basedprevalencesurveillance

Identifiers

PMID38550781
PMCPMC10977073

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.