ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
An extensive re-evaluation of evidence and analyses of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) I: Within proactive culling areas.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomised Badger Culling Trial-no effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle: comment on Mills, Woodroffe and Donnelly (2024a, 2024b).Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Randomised Badger Culling Trial lacks evidence for proactive badger culling effect on tuberculosis in cattle: comment on Mills et al. 2024, Parts I & II.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- An extensive re-evaluation of evidence and analyses of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial II: In neighbouring areas.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- An extensive re-evaluation of evidence and analyses of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) I: Within proactive culling areas.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.