Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39169965›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

An extensive re-evaluation of evidence and analyses of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) I: Within proactive culling areas.

Cathal L Mills, Rosie Woodroffe, Christl A Donnelly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open 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

3 authors.

Cathal L MillsDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2441-0263
Rosie WoodroffeInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2104-3133
Christl A DonnellyDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0195-2463

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Here, in the first of two investigations, we evaluate and extend the analyses of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) to estimate the effectiveness of proactive badger culling for reducing incidence of tuberculosis (TB) in cattle within culling areas. Using previously reviewed, publicly available data, alongside frequentist and Bayesian approaches, we re-estimate culling effects for confirmed incidence of herd breakdowns (TB incidents in cattle) within proactive culling areas. We appraise the varying assumptions and statistical structures of individual models to determine model appropriateness. Our re-evaluation of frequentist models provides results consistent with peer-reviewed analyses of RBCT data, due to the consistency of beneficial effects across three analysis periods. Furthermore, well-fitting Bayesian models with weakly informative prior distribution assumptions produce high probabilities (91.2%-99.5%) of beneficial effects of proactive culling on confirmed herd breakdowns within culling areas in the period from the initial culls (between 1998 and 2002) until 2005. Similarly high probabilities of beneficial effects were observed post-trial (from 1 year after last culls until March 2013). Thus, irrespective of statistical approach or study period, we estimate substantial beneficial effects of proactive culling within culling areas, consistent with separate, existing, peer-reviewed analyses of the RBCT data.

Indexed as

badgerscattlecullingepidemiologytuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID39169965
PMCPMC11335396

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.