ReviewAustralian veterinary journal2024
An evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of diagnostic tests for foot and mouth disease: are novel diagnostic tests for FMD more feasible than conventional tests in Southeast Asia?
Review in Australian veterinary journal, 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.
- Baseline serological assessment of foot-and-mouth disease using a non-structural protein antibody lateral flow assay in cattle from an foot-and-mouth disease-free region of Indonesia.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2026Article
- An evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of diagnostic tests for foot and mouth disease: are novel diagnostic tests for FMD more feasible than conventional tests in Southeast Asia?Australian veterinary journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foot and mouth disease (FMD) remains endemic in many areas of continental Southeast Asia (SEA). It is responsible for substantial economic losses in the smallholder sector and threatens livelihoods. In recent years, novel diagnostic tests have been developed which reportedly detect FMD virus more effectively and efficiently. This critically appraised topic (CAT) aimed to evaluate the feasibility of these diagnostic tests for FMD in SEA compared to conventional tests. Relevant studies that evaluate diagnostic tests are identified and critically assessed, and recommendations are made on suitable potential diagnostic tests for use in the smallholder sector in SEA. A systematic search of electronic databases (CABI: CAB Abstracts, Web of Science Core Collections) was carried out to identify relevant studies that compared novel and conventional diagnostic tests. The search strategy initially identified 12 papers, of which six fulfilled all the inclusion criteria and were selected for this review. Most of the selected studies had limitations in design and comparability, making it difficult to validly compare the effectiveness and efficiency of the relevant diagnostic tests. These limitations include variation in sample characteristics, methodology, measurable outcomes and the different aspects of the diagnostic tests that each study focused on. Most studies concluded that novel diagnostic tests were more effective and efficient than conventional tests: had greater analytical sensitivity and specificity, were more robust, had a wider range of processable sample types and serotypes, could detect various diseases, had faster testing speeds and provided greater value for money. However, strong recommendations on which specific diagnostic test to rely on could not be made, since there was conflicting evidence and multiple confounding factors. Overall, the evidence found did not entirely apply to the target scenario, being SEA smallholder farms. Recommendations for the target scenario were also made based on the study findings.
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.