Key result
Routine serological surveillance had a low probability (39%) of detecting the 1997-1998 classical swine fever epidemic in the Netherlands and is not an appropriate instrument for early detection.
Why the study?
Does routine serological surveillance effectively detect the introduction of classical swine fever virus into a disease-free population?
Observational (n=21)
Does routine serological surveillance effectively detect the introduction of classical swine fever virus into a disease-free population?
Routine serological surveillance is highly ineffective at early detection of classical swine fever outbreaks, highlighting the need for better monitoring strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports serological surveillance for early CSF detection in free populations; leaves open optimal protocols for routine adoption.
Nielen et al. (1999) conducted an observational in Classical swine fever (n=21). Routine serological surveillance was evaluated on Probability of detecting the epidemic using blood samples collected within the framework of the herd disease control regulation. Routine serological surveillance had a low probability (39%) of detecting the 1997-1998 classical swine fever epidemic in the Netherlands and is not an appropriate instrument for early detection.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: