2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.04.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bayesian estimation of prevalence of paratuberculosis in dairy herds enrolled in a voluntary Johne’s Disease Control Programme in Ireland

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
39
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
39
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Beta distributions were constructed for each test from central and dispersion estimates found in the literature (Vose, 2000). The sensitivity of the serum ELISA test was modeled by a beta distribution with a mode of 0.15 and upper 95th percentile of 0.30, whereas the sensitivity of the milk ELISA test was modeled by a beta distribution with a mode of 0.13 and upper 95th percentile of 0.26 (van Weering et al, 2007;Nielsen and Toft, 2008;Pozzato et al, 2011;More et al, 2013;McAloon et al, 2016a). Summary estimates of the specificity for these ELISA kits ranged from 0.98 to 1.00 (Nielsen and Toft, 2008;Nielsen et al, 2013).…”
Section: Model Input Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Beta distributions were constructed for each test from central and dispersion estimates found in the literature (Vose, 2000). The sensitivity of the serum ELISA test was modeled by a beta distribution with a mode of 0.15 and upper 95th percentile of 0.30, whereas the sensitivity of the milk ELISA test was modeled by a beta distribution with a mode of 0.13 and upper 95th percentile of 0.26 (van Weering et al, 2007;Nielsen and Toft, 2008;Pozzato et al, 2011;More et al, 2013;McAloon et al, 2016a). Summary estimates of the specificity for these ELISA kits ranged from 0.98 to 1.00 (Nielsen and Toft, 2008;Nielsen et al, 2013).…”
Section: Model Input Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Summary estimates of the specificity for these ELISA kits ranged from 0.98 to 1.00 (Nielsen and Toft, 2008;Nielsen et al, 2013). Consequently, the specificity of the ELISA test was modeled by a beta distribution with a mode of 0.990 and upper 95th percentile of 0.995 (McAloon et al, 2016a). The sensitivity of the fecal culture in ELISA-positive animals was modeled by a All animals ≥2 yr old tested with either milk ELISA twice per year (cows in milk) or serum ELISA once per year (males and dry cows).…”
Section: Model Input Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, a probability of infection for each herd was estimated using a Bayesian latent class model. This model had the same structure and was implemented using the same methods as described in McAloon et al (2016a). Briefly, the number of test positive animals in a given herd was assumed to follow a binomial distribution with a probability equal to the apparent prevalence (AP) and n equal to the number of animals tested.…”
Section: Pafmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…JD control programmes have been implemented in most developed countries, with objectives based on the national economic situation of the cattle, sheep and goat industry and the herd‐level prevalence of MAP infection (reviewed by Kennedy, ; Geraghty, Graham, Mullowney, & More, ). In general, objectives include the following: (i) prove and protect freedom of disease at the country, regional or farm‐level, for example, in Norway (Whist et al., ), Sweden (Frössling et al., ) and northern and western Australia (Kennedy, ); (ii) protect export of milk or genetics, for example, Canada (McKenna, Vanleeuwen, et al., ); (iii) decrease prevalence of MAP infection and limit farm‐level economic losses, for example, Denmark (Nielsen, Jepsen, & Aagaard, ), the UK (Pritchard, Coffey, Bond, Hutchings, & Wall, ), Ireland (McAloon et al., ) and the USA (Wells, Hartmann, & Anderson, ); (iv) eliminate or reduce MAP load in bulk milk, for example, the Netherlands (Weber & van Schaik, ); and (v) eliminate MAP infection, for example, Norway in goats (Nagel‐Alne et al., ).…”
Section: Control Programmesmentioning
confidence: 99%