Why the study?
Does herdsman reporting accurately estimate foot-and-mouth disease prevalence compared to serologic testing?
Does herdsman reporting accurately estimate foot-and-mouth disease prevalence compared to serologic testing?
Herdsman reporting is a cost-effective and accurate resource for monitoring foot-and-mouth disease prevalence in endemic areas.
Herdsman-reported disease prevalence is widely used in veterinary epidemiologic studies, especially for diseases with visible external lesions; however, the accuracy of such reports is rarely validated. Thus, we used latent class analysis in a Bayesian framework to compare sensitivity and specificity of herdsman reporting with virus neutralization testing and use of 3 nonstructural protein ELISAs for estimates of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) prevalence on the Adamawa plateau of Cameroon in 2000. Herdsman-reported estimates in this FMD-endemic area were comparable to those obtained from serologic testing. To harness to this cost-effective resource of monitoring emerging infectious diseases, we suggest that estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of herdsmen reporting should be done in parallel with serologic surveys of other animal diseases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morgan et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: