ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2011
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.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2011. 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.
- Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: An Integrated Review of Prion Mechanisms, Neuroanatomy, and Control.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- 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
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 three EU Member States (MSs): Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. These three MSs have been already considered in a recent revision of the BSE monitoring regime in EU MSs done in 2010. However, in that revision the full assessment of these 3 MSs was not possible due to data limitations. In the current revision, updated data from the years 2004 to 2010 (i.e. one further year of BSE monitoring data compared to the former assessment) on BSE monitoring in cattle from these three MSs had been considered. Key assumptions made for this review 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 BSE controls, and (iii) perfect sensitivity of the rapid tests employed for BSE monitoring. Two methodologies were applied in order to assess the trend of the Classical BSE epidemic and to estimate its future trend, based on the number of cases per birth cohort that may be observed in the future. 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. The application of these methodologies, in particular the second one, provided an estimate of the number of BSE cases that would be missed in these three MSs as a group under a theoretical increase in the current age for BSE testing in the healthy slaughtered and at risk cattle testing groups. Recommendations were made in order to overcome limitations encountered during the analysis, 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.