ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2010
Scientific Opinion on a second update on the risk for human and animal health related to the revision of the BSE monitoring regime in some Member States.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the revision of the BSE monitoring regime in Croatia.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2016Article
- Scientific Opinion on the review on the risk for human and animal health related to the revision of the BSE monitoring regime in three EU Member States.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2011Article
- Scientific Opinion on a second update on the risk for human and animal health related to the revision of the BSE monitoring regime in some Member States.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) monitoring system implemented in the European Union (EU) has been reviewed in this opinion for twenty five Member States (MSs). For this revision, MSs were divided into three groups depending on the number of years during which they have implemented the EU monitoring regime, and/or on the similarities of their epidemiological situations. Key assumptions made include: (i) full past compliance (for at least 6 years) with EU regulatory requirements for the surveillance and control of cattle BSE, (ii) future continuity of the BSE controls, and (iii) perfect sensitivity of the rapid tests employed for BSE surveillance. Two methodologies were applied to these three groups of MSs using available EU BSE monitoring data. The first one looks at the age of detected cases in each calendar year, while the second looks at the number of cases in successive annual birth cohorts. For the first group of MSs, these methodologies were applied in order to estimate the number of Classical BSE cases that would be missed under three different scenarios: (i) an increase in the age for BSE testing in cattle; (ii) stopping testing in cattle born after a certain date, and (iii) stopping testing of healthy slaughter cattle after certain dates. In the second group of MSs, the epidemiological situation was at least equivalent to that of the first group, and thus the conclusion was that they can be considered together for any potential revision of the BSE monitoring system. For the third group of MSs, it was not possible to calculate detailed estimates as their particular epidemiological situation compromises the application of some of the methods used. Recommendations are made in order to overcome the limitations encountered, and to ensure fitness of the EU monitoring regime for the purposes for which it is currently used.
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.