Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41058743›Full record

ArticleVeterinary medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2025

Strict Biosecurity and Epidemiological Segmentation Enable Partial Culling During a Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak.

Martin J Oettler, Gerald Stumpf, Katja Schulz, Matthias Todte, Klim Hüttner, Heidemarie Heyne, Thomas C Mettenleiter, Franz J Conraths, Carola Sauter-Louis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

9 authors.

Martin J Oettler *Institute of Epidemiology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Greifswald-Insel Riems, 17493, Germany.ORCID 0009-0000-8596-1211
Gerald Stumpf *Veterinary and Food Inspection Office, Güstrow, 18273, Germany.
Katja SchulzInstitute of Epidemiology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Greifswald-Insel Riems, 17493, Germany.
Matthias TodteVeterinary Practice MMT, Köthen (Anhalt) 06366, Germany.
Klim HüttnerVeterinary Epidemiological Service, State Institute for Agriculture, Food Safety and Fisheries Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Rostock, 18059, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-3776-6793
Heidemarie HeyneAnimal Health Division, Ministry for Climate Protection, Agriculture, Rural Areas and the Environment of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Schwerin, 19061, Germany.
Thomas C MettenleiterFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Greifswald-Insel Riems, 17493, Germany.
Franz J ConrathsInstitute of Epidemiology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Greifswald-Insel Riems, 17493, Germany.
Carola Sauter-LouisInstitute of Epidemiology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Greifswald-Insel Riems, 17493, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The mandatory procedures to be followed after official confirmation of an outbreak of category A animal infectious diseases, including highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), is laid down in European and national legislation. Typically, an outbreak of HPAI results in the destruction of the entire poultry population on the affected holding. Case Presentation: The presented case reports a deviation from this approach, demonstrating the practicality of partial culling in a highly biosecure, epidemiologically segmented holding. These on-site circumstances together with the specific risk assessment led to the elimination of only the affected unit, thereby inhibiting the further spread of the disease. After the destruction of the respective unit (farm), the other farms were closely monitored and tested continuously negative for HPAI virus (HPAIV) despite intensive systematic sampling. In the end, this procedure saved approximately 138,000 animals, ie 75% of the poultry population of the holding from destruction. Conclusion: This case demonstrates the effectiveness of proper management and high-level biosecurity to avoid excessive destruction of animals in case of an infectious disease outbreak. It might be suitable as a best-practice example in similar situations.

Indexed as

biosafetyepidemiological unitepidemiologyinfectious animal diseasespoultry

Identifiers

PMID41058743
PMCPMC12499244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.