ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Identification of cost-effective biosecurity measures to reduce
Article 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 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision-making structure and nudges for Japanese pig farmers to implement biosecurity measures against classical swine fever outbreaks.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Rethinking the fight against pig-related human salmonellosis in the European union.Porcine health management · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The continued occurrence of salmonellosis cases in Europe attributed to the consumption of pork products highlights the importance of identifying cost-effective interventions. Certain biosecurity measures (BSMs) may be effective in reducing the prevalence of specific pathogens along the pork production chain and their presence in food products. The objective of this study was to identify pathogen-specific, cost-effective BSMs to reduce Salmonella at different stages of the pork production chain in two European countries - Austria (AT) and the United Kingdom (UK). For this purpose, a cost-benefit analysis was conducted based on the epidemiological output of an established quantitative microbiological risk assessment that simulated the implementation effect of the BSMs based on their risk ratios. For each of the BSMs, the associated costs and benefits were assessed individually and country-specifically. For both AT and UK, nine different BSMs were evaluated assuming a countrywide implementation rate of 100%. The results showed that four BSMs were cost-effective (benefit-cost ratio > 1) for AT and five for the UK. The uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness of the BSMs resulted from the variability of individual risk ratios, and the variability of benefits associated with the implementation of the BSMs. The low number of cost-effective BSMs highlights the need for holistic risk-based models and economic assessments. To increase the willingness to implement BSMs and maximize the benefits for stakeholders, who carry the majority of the implementation costs, epidemiological assessments of BSM effectiveness should consider the impact on several relevant pathogens simultaneously.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.