ReviewAustralian veterinary journal2025
Australia versus Denmark: an analysis of foot-and-mouth disease mitigation strategies.
Review in Australian veterinary journal, 2025. 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.
- Review
- Australia versus Denmark: an analysis of foot-and-mouth disease mitigation strategies.Australian veterinary journal · 2025Review
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
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) has progressively increased as an economically significant viral pathogen to the global agricultural and livestock industries, especially in those countries listed as FMD-free, such as Australia and Denmark. The potential risk associated with the loss of this status enlists an equally significant level of biosecurity and outbreak preparedness via specific mitigation strategies. Current technology allows for modelling of theoretical incursion scenarios; however, the parameters used are ever-changing and differ based on location. This study aims to compare the modelling outputs from at least five separate studies, from both Australia and Denmark respectively, to identify the most significant results and subsequently determine the recommendations most important to implement for national FMD outbreak mitigation. The comparative analysis suggests that the demographics, both within and between Australia and Denmark, can markedly affect the spread of FMD, but that each country's modelling of potential FMD outbreaks yielded three common areas for future recommendations: resource allocation and control; economic efficiency; and alternative interventions. Key points of difference, however, were Denmark's island geography and subsequent isolated populations of high-density production that led to a more regional approach of minimising island-island spread through varying vaccination regimes and depopulation/surveillance zone combinations. Australia's strategies of control centred more around enhanced detection and surveillance to prevent the incidence of significant outbreaks in the production animal industry. The most common factor for both was cost, specifically the reduction in time to export post-outbreak, due to each respective export industry, and the significant losses associated with even short periods of trade bans due to disease. The costs of surveillance and resources were similarly investigated in tandem with different interventions to further understand the components of an effective mitigation method for any outbreak of FMD.
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.