With the current trend in animal health surveillance toward risk-based designs and a gradual transition to output-based standards, greater flexibility in surveillance design is both required and allowed. However, the increase in flexibility requires more transparency regarding surveillance, its activities, design and implementation. Such transparency allows stakeholders, trade partners, decision-makers and risk assessors to accurately interpret the validity of the surveillance outcomes. This paper presents the first version of the Animal Health Surveillance Reporting Guidelines (AHSURED) and the process by which they have been developed. The goal of AHSURED was to produce a set of reporting guidelines that supports communication of surveillance activities in the form of narrative descriptions. Reporting guidelines come from the field of evidence-based medicine and their aim is to improve consistency and quality of information reported in scientific journals. They usually consist of a checklist of items to be reported, a description/definition of each item, and an explanation and elaboration document. Examples of well-reported items are frequently provided. Additionally, it is common to make available a website where the guidelines are documented and maintained. This first version of the AHSURED guidelines consists of a checklist of 40 items organized in 11 sections (i.e., surveillance system building blocks), which is available as a wiki at https://github.com/SVA-SE/AHSURED/wiki. The choice of a wiki format will allow for further inputs from surveillance experts who were not involved in the earlier stages of development. This will promote an up-to-date refined guideline document.
BackgroundPorcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) has been a cause for great concern to the Danish pig industry since it was first diagnosed in 1992. The causative agent of PRRS is an RNA virus which is divided into different genotypes. The clinical signs, as well as its morbidity and mortality, is highly variable between herds and regions. Two different genotypes of PRRS virus (PRRSV) are found in Denmark: type 1 and type 2. Approximately 40 % of Danish swine herds are seropositive for one or both PRRSV types. The objective of this study was to describe the temporal trend and spatial distribution of PRRSV in Danish swine herds from 2007 to 2010, based on type-specific serological tests from the PRRS surveillance and control program in Denmark using the results stored in the information management system at the National Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark (DTU Vet).ResultsThe average monthly seroprevalence of PRRSV type 1 was 9 % (minimum of 5 %; maximum of 13 %) in breeding herds, and 20 % (minimum of 14 %; maximum of 26 %) in production herds; PRRSV type 2 had an average seroprevalence of 3 % (minimum of 1 %; maximum of 9 %) in breeding herds and of 9 % (minimum of 5 %; maximum of 13 %) within production herds. The seroconversion rate followed a similar and consistent pattern, being higher for type 1 than for type 2 for both PRRSV types. Regarding the spatiotemporal results, the relative risk distribution maps changed over time as a consequence of the changes in PRRSV seroprevalence, suggesting a general decline in the extent of areas with higher relative risk for both type 1 and 2. Local spatial analysis results demonstrated the existence of statistically significant clusters in areas where the relative risk was higher for both herds.ConclusionsPRRSV type 1 seroprevalence was constantly higher than for PRRSV type 2 in both herd types. Significant spatial clusters were consistently found in Denmark, suggesting that PRRSV is endemic in these areas. Furthermore, relative risk distribution maps revealed different patterns over time as a consequence of the changes in seroprevalence.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12917-015-0617-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Disease monitoring and surveillance play a crucial role in control and eradication programs, as it is important to track implemented strategies in order to reduce and/or eliminate a specific disease. The objectives of this study were to assess the performance of different statistical monitoring methods for endemic disease control program scenarios, and to explore what impact of variation (noise) in the data had on the performance of these monitoring methods. We simulated 16 different scenarios of changes in weekly sero-prevalence. The changes included different combinations of increases, decreases and constant sero-prevalence levels (referred as events). Two space-state models were used to model the time series, and different statistical monitoring methods (such as univariate process control algorithms–Shewart Control Chart, Tabular Cumulative Sums, and the V-mask- and monitoring of the trend component–based on 99% confidence intervals and the trend sign) were tested. Performance was evaluated based on the number of iterations in which an alarm was raised for a given week after the changes were introduced. Results revealed that the Shewhart Control Chart was better at detecting increases over decreases in sero-prevalence, whereas the opposite was observed for the Tabular Cumulative Sums. The trend-based methods detected the first event well, but performance was poorer when adapting to several consecutive events. The V-Mask method seemed to perform most consistently, and the impact of noise in the baseline was greater for the Shewhart Control Chart and Tabular Cumulative Sums than for the V-Mask and trend-based methods. The performance of the different statistical monitoring methods varied when monitoring increases and decreases in disease sero-prevalence. Combining two of more methods might improve the potential scope of surveillance systems, allowing them to fulfill different objectives due to their complementary advantages.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.