Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of wild bird surveillance for avian influenza.
Identifieur interne : 000313 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 000312; suivant : 000314Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of wild bird surveillance for avian influenza.
Auteurs : Theodore J D. Knight-Jones [Royaume-Uni] ; Ruth Hauser ; Doris Matthes ; Katharina D C. St RkSource :
- Veterinary research [ 0928-4249 ]
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- Allemagne (épidémiologie), Analyse coût-bénéfice (MeSH), Animaux (MeSH), Animaux sauvages (MeSH), Anseriformes (MeSH), Autriche (épidémiologie), Grippe chez les oiseaux (épidémiologie), Modèles biologiques (MeSH), Santé publique (économie), Suisse (épidémiologie), Surveillance de la population (méthodes).
- MESH :
- méthodes : Surveillance de la population.
- économie : Santé publique.
- épidémiologie : Allemagne, Autriche, Grippe chez les oiseaux, Suisse.
- Analyse coût-bénéfice, Animaux, Animaux sauvages, Anseriformes, Modèles biologiques.
- Wicri :
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
- geographic , epidemiology : Austria, Germany, Switzerland.
- economics : Public Health.
- epidemiology : Influenza in Birds.
- methods : Population Surveillance.
- Animals, Animals, Wild, Anseriformes, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Models, Biological.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess which method of wild waterbird surveillance had the greatest probability of detecting highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 during a period of surveillance activity, the cost of each method was also considered. Lake Constance is a major wintering centre for migratory waterbirds and in 2006 it was the site of an HPAI H5N1 epidemic in wild birds. Avian influenza surveillance was conducted using harmonised approaches in the three countries around the lake, Austria, Germany and Switzerland, from 2006-2009. The surveillance consisted of testing birds sampled by the following methods: live birds caught in traps, birds killed by hunters, birds caught in fishing nets, dead birds found by the public and catching live Mute Swans (Cygnus olor); sentinel flocks of Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were also used. Scenario tree analysis was performed including sensitivity analysis, followed by assessment of cost-effectiveness. Results indicated that if HPAI H5N1 was present at 1% prevalence and assuming HPAI resulted in bird mortality, sampling dead birds found by the public and sentinel surveillance were the most sensitive approaches despite residual uncertainty over some parameters. The uncertainty over the mortality of infected birds was an influential factor. Sampling birds found dead was most cost-effective, but strongly dependent on mortality and awareness of the public. Trapping live birds was least cost-effective. Based on our results, we recommend that future HPAI H5N1 surveillance around Lake Constance should prioritise sentinel surveillance and, if high mortality is expected, the testing of birds found dead.
DOI: 10.1051/vetres/2010023
PubMed: 20409452
PubMed Central: PMC2878168
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of wild bird surveillance for avian influenza.</title><author><name sortKey="Knight Jones, Theodore J D" sort="Knight Jones, Theodore J D" uniqKey="Knight Jones T" first="Theodore J D" last="Knight-Jones">Theodore J D. Knight-Jones</name><affiliation wicri:level="4"><nlm:affiliation>The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Wardens house, Hawkshead lane, North Mymms, Herts., AL9 7TA, United Kingdom. tkjones@rvc.ac.uk</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Wardens house, Hawkshead lane, North Mymms, Herts., AL9 7TA</wicri:regionArea><orgName type="university">Université de Londres</orgName><placeName><settlement type="city">Londres</settlement><region type="country">Angleterre</region><region type="région" nuts="1">Grand Londres</region></placeName></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hauser, Ruth" sort="Hauser, Ruth" uniqKey="Hauser R" first="Ruth" last="Hauser">Ruth Hauser</name></author><author><name sortKey="Matthes, Doris" sort="Matthes, Doris" uniqKey="Matthes D" first="Doris" last="Matthes">Doris Matthes</name></author><author><name sortKey="St Rk, Katharina D C" sort="St Rk, Katharina D C" uniqKey="St Rk K" first="Katharina D C" last="St Rk">Katharina D C. St Rk</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2010">2010 Jul-Aug</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:20409452</idno><idno type="pmid">20409452</idno><idno type="doi">10.1051/vetres/2010023</idno><idno type="pmc">PMC2878168</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">000341</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000341</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">000341</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Curation">000341</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">000341</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of wild bird surveillance for avian influenza.</title><author><name sortKey="Knight Jones, Theodore J D" sort="Knight Jones, Theodore J D" uniqKey="Knight Jones T" first="Theodore J D" last="Knight-Jones">Theodore J D. Knight-Jones</name><affiliation wicri:level="4"><nlm:affiliation>The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Wardens house, Hawkshead lane, North Mymms, Herts., AL9 7TA, United Kingdom. tkjones@rvc.ac.uk</nlm:affiliation><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Wardens house, Hawkshead lane, North Mymms, Herts., AL9 7TA</wicri:regionArea><orgName type="university">Université de Londres</orgName><placeName><settlement type="city">Londres</settlement><region type="country">Angleterre</region><region type="région" nuts="1">Grand Londres</region></placeName></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hauser, Ruth" sort="Hauser, Ruth" uniqKey="Hauser R" first="Ruth" last="Hauser">Ruth Hauser</name></author><author><name sortKey="Matthes, Doris" sort="Matthes, Doris" uniqKey="Matthes D" first="Doris" last="Matthes">Doris Matthes</name></author><author><name sortKey="St Rk, Katharina D C" sort="St Rk, Katharina D C" uniqKey="St Rk K" first="Katharina D C" last="St Rk">Katharina D C. St Rk</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Veterinary research</title><idno type="ISSN">0928-4249</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Animals (MeSH)</term><term>Animals, Wild (MeSH)</term><term>Anseriformes (MeSH)</term><term>Austria (epidemiology)</term><term>Cost-Benefit Analysis (MeSH)</term><term>Germany (epidemiology)</term><term>Influenza in Birds (epidemiology)</term><term>Models, Biological (MeSH)</term><term>Population Surveillance (methods)</term><term>Public Health (economics)</term><term>Switzerland (epidemiology)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Allemagne (épidémiologie)</term><term>Analyse coût-bénéfice (MeSH)</term><term>Animaux (MeSH)</term><term>Animaux sauvages (MeSH)</term><term>Anseriformes (MeSH)</term><term>Autriche (épidémiologie)</term><term>Grippe chez les oiseaux (épidémiologie)</term><term>Modèles biologiques (MeSH)</term><term>Santé publique (économie)</term><term>Suisse (épidémiologie)</term><term>Surveillance de la population (méthodes)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" type="geographic" qualifier="epidemiology" xml:lang="en"><term>Austria</term><term>Germany</term><term>Switzerland</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="economics" xml:lang="en"><term>Public Health</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="epidemiology" xml:lang="en"><term>Influenza in Birds</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="methods" xml:lang="en"><term>Population Surveillance</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="méthodes" xml:lang="fr"><term>Surveillance de la population</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="économie" xml:lang="fr"><term>Santé publique</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" qualifier="épidémiologie" xml:lang="fr"><term>Allemagne</term><term>Autriche</term><term>Grippe chez les oiseaux</term><term>Suisse</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Animals</term><term>Animals, Wild</term><term>Anseriformes</term><term>Cost-Benefit Analysis</term><term>Models, Biological</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Analyse coût-bénéfice</term><term>Animaux</term><term>Animaux sauvages</term><term>Anseriformes</term><term>Modèles biologiques</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Wicri" type="geographic" xml:lang="fr"><term>Autriche</term><term>Allemagne</term><term>Suisse</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">This study aimed to assess which method of wild waterbird surveillance had the greatest probability of detecting highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 during a period of surveillance activity, the cost of each method was also considered. Lake Constance is a major wintering centre for migratory waterbirds and in 2006 it was the site of an HPAI H5N1 epidemic in wild birds. Avian influenza surveillance was conducted using harmonised approaches in the three countries around the lake, Austria, Germany and Switzerland, from 2006-2009. The surveillance consisted of testing birds sampled by the following methods: live birds caught in traps, birds killed by hunters, birds caught in fishing nets, dead birds found by the public and catching live Mute Swans (Cygnus olor); sentinel flocks of Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were also used. Scenario tree analysis was performed including sensitivity analysis, followed by assessment of cost-effectiveness. Results indicated that if HPAI H5N1 was present at 1% prevalence and assuming HPAI resulted in bird mortality, sampling dead birds found by the public and sentinel surveillance were the most sensitive approaches despite residual uncertainty over some parameters. The uncertainty over the mortality of infected birds was an influential factor. Sampling birds found dead was most cost-effective, but strongly dependent on mortality and awareness of the public. Trapping live birds was least cost-effective. Based on our results, we recommend that future HPAI H5N1 surveillance around Lake Constance should prioritise sentinel surveillance and, if high mortality is expected, the testing of birds found dead.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">20409452</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2010</Year><Month>09</Month><Day>14</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2018</Year><Month>11</Month><Day>13</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">0928-4249</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print"><Volume>41</Volume><Issue>4</Issue><PubDate><MedlineDate>2010 Jul-Aug</MedlineDate></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Veterinary research</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Vet. Res.</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of wild bird surveillance for avian influenza.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>50</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1051/vetres/2010023</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>This study aimed to assess which method of wild waterbird surveillance had the greatest probability of detecting highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 during a period of surveillance activity, the cost of each method was also considered. Lake Constance is a major wintering centre for migratory waterbirds and in 2006 it was the site of an HPAI H5N1 epidemic in wild birds. Avian influenza surveillance was conducted using harmonised approaches in the three countries around the lake, Austria, Germany and Switzerland, from 2006-2009. The surveillance consisted of testing birds sampled by the following methods: live birds caught in traps, birds killed by hunters, birds caught in fishing nets, dead birds found by the public and catching live Mute Swans (Cygnus olor); sentinel flocks of Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were also used. Scenario tree analysis was performed including sensitivity analysis, followed by assessment of cost-effectiveness. Results indicated that if HPAI H5N1 was present at 1% prevalence and assuming HPAI resulted in bird mortality, sampling dead birds found by the public and sentinel surveillance were the most sensitive approaches despite residual uncertainty over some parameters. The uncertainty over the mortality of infected birds was an influential factor. Sampling birds found dead was most cost-effective, but strongly dependent on mortality and awareness of the public. Trapping live birds was least cost-effective. Based on our results, we recommend that future HPAI H5N1 surveillance around Lake Constance should prioritise sentinel surveillance and, if high mortality is expected, the testing of birds found dead.</AbstractText><CopyrightInformation>Copyright (c) INRA, EDP Sciences, 2010.</CopyrightInformation></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Knight-Jones</LastName><ForeName>Theodore J D</ForeName><Initials>TJ</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Wardens house, Hawkshead lane, North Mymms, Herts., AL9 7TA, United Kingdom. tkjones@rvc.ac.uk</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Hauser</LastName><ForeName>Ruth</ForeName><Initials>R</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Matthes</LastName><ForeName>Doris</ForeName><Initials>D</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Stärk</LastName><ForeName>Katharina D C</ForeName><Initials>KD</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2010</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>23</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>England</Country><MedlineTA>Vet Res</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>9309551</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0928-4249</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000818" MajorTopicYN="N">Animals</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000835" MajorTopicYN="N">Animals, Wild</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D046090" MajorTopicYN="N">Anseriformes</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D001317" MajorTopicYN="N" Type="Geographic">Austria</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000453" MajorTopicYN="N">epidemiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D003362" MajorTopicYN="N">Cost-Benefit Analysis</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005858" MajorTopicYN="N" Type="Geographic">Germany</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000453" MajorTopicYN="N">epidemiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005585" MajorTopicYN="N">Influenza in Birds</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000453" MajorTopicYN="Y">epidemiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008954" MajorTopicYN="N">Models, Biological</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011159" MajorTopicYN="N">Population Surveillance</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000379" MajorTopicYN="N">methods</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011634" MajorTopicYN="N">Public Health</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000191" MajorTopicYN="N">economics</QualifierName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D013557" MajorTopicYN="N" Type="Geographic">Switzerland</DescriptorName><QualifierName UI="Q000453" MajorTopicYN="N">epidemiology</QualifierName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2009</Year><Month>12</Month><Day>09</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2010</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>19</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2010</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>23</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2010</Year><Month>4</Month><Day>23</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2010</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>15</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">20409452</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1051/vetres/2010023</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pii">v09603</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC2878168</ArticleId></ArticleIdList><ReferenceList><Reference><Citation>Emerg Infect Dis. 2008 Aug;14(8):1267-70</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18680652</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Vaccine. 2007 Jul 26;25(30):5637-44</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17126960</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Emerg Infect Dis. 2008 Apr;14(4):600-7</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18394278</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Emerg Infect Dis. 2008 Jan;14(1):136-42</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18258093</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Emerg Infect Dis. 2007 Dec;13(12):1821-7</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18258030</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Vet Microbiol. 2000 May 22;74(1-2):3-13</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">10799774</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Prev Vet Med. 2007 May 16;79(2-4):98-115</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17239459</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Prev Vet Med. 2007 May 16;79(2-4):71-97</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17224193</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Nov;12(11):1663-70</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17283615</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Dec 19;103(51):19368-73</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">17158217</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Arch Virol. 2006 Jul;151(7):1267-79</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16502281</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Science. 2006 Apr 21;312(5772):384-8</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16627734</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>J Clin Virol. 2006 Jan;35(1):2-13</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">16213784</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar;56(1):152-79</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">1579108</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Vet Res Commun. 1988;12(2-3):125-41</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">3055662</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2009 Jan;3(1):1-14</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">19453436</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Oct;15(10):1633-6</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">19861060</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference><Reference><Citation>Avian Dis. 2008 Mar;52(1):100-5</Citation><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">18459304</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></Reference></ReferenceList></PubmedData></pubmed><affiliations><list><country><li>Royaume-Uni</li></country><region><li>Angleterre</li><li>Grand Londres</li></region><settlement><li>Londres</li></settlement><orgName><li>Université de Londres</li></orgName></list><tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Hauser, Ruth" sort="Hauser, Ruth" uniqKey="Hauser R" first="Ruth" last="Hauser">Ruth Hauser</name><name sortKey="Matthes, Doris" sort="Matthes, Doris" uniqKey="Matthes D" first="Doris" last="Matthes">Doris Matthes</name><name sortKey="St Rk, Katharina D C" sort="St Rk, Katharina D C" uniqKey="St Rk K" first="Katharina D C" last="St Rk">Katharina D C. St Rk</name></noCountry><country name="Royaume-Uni"><region name="Angleterre"><name sortKey="Knight Jones, Theodore J D" sort="Knight Jones, Theodore J D" uniqKey="Knight Jones T" first="Theodore J D" last="Knight-Jones">Theodore J D. Knight-Jones</name></region></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Sante/explor/GrippeAllemagneV4/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000313 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 000313 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Sante
|area= GrippeAllemagneV4
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:20409452
|texte= Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of wild bird surveillance for avian influenza.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:20409452" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a GrippeAllemagneV4
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.35. |  |