↓ Skip to main content

Towards a standardised surveillance for Trichinella in the European Union

Overview of attention for article published in Preventive Veterinary Medicine, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
5 policy sources

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Towards a standardised surveillance for Trichinella in the European Union
Published in
Preventive Veterinary Medicine, March 2011
DOI 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.02.008
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Each year, more than 167 million pigs in the European Union (EU) are tested for Trichinella spp. under the current meat hygiene regulations. This imposes large economic costs on countries, yet the vast majority of these pigs test negative and the public health risk in many countries is therefore considered very low. This work reviewed the current Trichinella status across the EU as well as the national level of monitoring and reporting. It also reviewed which animal species were affected by Trichinella and in which species it should be surveyed. This information was used to design a cost-effective surveillance programme that enables a standardised monitoring approach within the EU. The proposed surveillance programme relies on identifying sub-populations of animals with a distinct risk. Low-risk pigs are finisher pigs that originate from so-called controlled housing. All other pigs are considered high-risk pigs. Controlled housing is identified by the application of a specific list of management and husbandry practices. We suggest that member states (MS) be categorised into three classes based on the confidence that Trichinella can be considered absent, in the specified sub-population of pigs above a specified design prevalence which we set to 1 per million pigs. A simple and transparent method is proposed to estimate this confidence, based on the sensitivity of the surveillance system, taking into account the sensitivity of testing and the design prevalence. The probability of detecting a positive case, if present, must be high (>95 or >99%) to ensure that there is a low or negligible risk of transmission to humans through the food chain. In MS where the probability of a positive pig is demonstrated to be negligible, testing of fattening pigs from a sub-population consisting of pigs from controlled housing can be considered unnecessary. Furthermore, reduced testing of finishers from the sub-population consisting of pigs from non-controlled housing might even be considered, if conducted in conjunction with a proportionate sampling scheme and a risk-based wildlife surveillance programme where applicable. The proposed surveillance programme specifies the required number of samples to be taken and found negative, in a MS. A MS with no data or positive findings will initially be allocated to class 1, in which all pigs should be tested. When a MS is able to demonstrate a 95% or 99% confidence that Trichinella is absent, the MS will be allocated to class 2 or 3, in which the testing requirement is lower than in class 1.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Denmark 2 3%
India 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 73 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 27%
Professor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Master 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 21 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,957,607
of 33,738,238 outputs
Outputs from Preventive Veterinary Medicine
#144
of 2,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,173
of 157,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Preventive Veterinary Medicine
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,738,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 157,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.