Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39169967›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

An extensive re-evaluation of evidence and analyses of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial II: In neighbouring 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

In the second investigation in a pair of analyses which re-evaluates the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), we estimate the effects of proactive badger culling on the incidence of tuberculosis (TB) in cattle populations in unculled neighbouring areas. Throughout peer-reviewed analyses of the RBCT, proactive culling was estimated to have detrimental effects on the incidence of herd breakdowns (i.e. TB incidents) in neighbouring areas. Using previously published, publicly available data, we appraise a variety of frequentist and Bayesian models as we estimate the effects of proactive culling on confirmed herd breakdowns in unculled neighbouring areas. For the during trial period from the initial culls until 4 September 2005, we estimate consistently high probabilities that proactive culling had adverse effects on confirmed herd breakdowns in unculled neighbouring areas, thus supporting the theory of heightened risk of TB for the neighbouring cattle populations. Negligible culling effects are estimated in the post-trial period across the statistical approaches and imply unsustained long-term effects for unculled neighbouring areas. Therefore, when considered alongside estimated beneficial effects within proactive culling areas, these conflicting adverse side effects render proactive culling complex, and thus, decision making regarding potential culling strategies should include (i) ecological, geographical and scientific considerations and (ii) cost-benefit analyses.

Indexed as

badgerscattlecullingepidemiologytuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID39169967
PMCPMC11335398

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.