ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
A framework for handling uncertainty in a large-scale programme estimating the Global Burden of Animal Diseases.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Livestock provide nutritional and socio-economic security for marginalized populations in low and middle-income countries. Poorly-informed decisions impact livestock husbandry outcomes, leading to poverty from livestock disease, with repercussions on human health and well-being. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme is working to understand the impacts of livestock disease upon human livelihoods and livestock health and welfare. This information can then be used by policy makers operating regionally, nationally and making global decisions. The burden of animal disease crosses many scales and estimating it is a complex task, with extensive requirements for data and subsequent data synthesis. Some of the information that livestock decision-makers require is represented by quantitative estimates derived from field data and models. Model outputs contain uncertainty, arising from many sources such as data quality and availability, or the user's understanding of models and production systems. Uncertainty in estimates needs to be recognized, accommodated, and accurately reported. This enables robust understanding of synthesized estimates, and associated uncertainty, providing rigor around values that will inform livestock management decision-making. Approaches to handling uncertainty in models and their outputs receive scant attention in animal health economics literature; indeed, uncertainty is sometimes perceived as an analytical weakness. However, knowledge of uncertainty is as important as generating point estimates. Motivated by the context of GBADs, this paper describes an analytical framework for handling uncertainty, emphasizing uncertainty management, and reporting to stakeholders and policy makers. This framework describes a hierarchy of evidence, guiding movement from worst to best-case sources of information, and suggests a stepwise approach to handling uncertainty in estimating the global burden of animal disease. The framework describes the following pillars: background preparation; models as simple as possible but no simpler; assumptions documented; data source quality ranked; commitment to moving up the evidence hierarchy; documentation and justification of modelling approaches, data, data flows and sources of modelling uncertainty; uncertainty and sensitivity analysis on model outputs; documentation and justification of approaches to handling uncertainty; an iterative, up-to-date process of modelling; accounting for accuracy of model inputs; communication of confidence in model outputs; and peer-review.
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.