↓ Skip to main content

Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
15 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.
Title
Expected Net Benefit of Vaccinating Rangeland Sheep against Bluetongue Virus Using a Modified-Live versus Killed Virus Vaccine
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00166
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tristram R. Munsick, Dannele E. Peck, John P. Ritten, Randall Jones, Michelle Jones, Myrna M. Miller

Abstract

Recurring outbreaks of bluetongue virus in domestic sheep of the US Intermountain West have prompted questions about the economic benefits and costs of vaccinating individual flocks against bluetongue (BT) disease. We estimate the cost of a BT outbreak on a representative rangeland sheep operation in the Big Horn Basin of the state of Wyoming using enterprise budgets and stochastic simulation. The latter accounts for variability in disease severity and lamb price, as well as uncertainty about when an outbreak will occur. We then estimate the cost of purchasing and administering a BT vaccine. Finally, we calculate expected annual net benefit of vaccinating under various outbreak intervals. Expected annual net benefit is calculated for both a killed virus (KV) vaccine and modified-live virus vaccine, using an observed price of $0.32 per dose for modified-live and an estimated price of $1.20 per dose for KV. The modified-live vaccine's expected annual net benefit has a 100% chance of being positive for an outbreak interval of 5, 10, or 20 years, and a 77% chance of being positive for a 50-year interval. The KV vaccine's expected annual net benefit has a 97% chance of being positive for a 5-year outbreak interval, and a 42% chance of being positive for a 10-year interval. A KV vaccine is, therefore, unlikely to be economically attractive to producers in areas exposed less frequently to BT disease. A modified-live vaccine, however, requires rigorous authorization before legal use can occur in Wyoming. To date, no company has requested to manufacture a modified-live vaccine for commercial use in Wyoming. The KV vaccine poses less risk to sheep reproduction and less risk of unintentional spread, both of which facilitate approval for commercial production. Yet, our results show an economically consequential tradeoff between a KV vaccine's relative safety and higher cost. Unless the purchase price is reduced below our assumed $1.20 per dose, producer adoption of a KV vaccine for BT is likely to be low in the study area. This tradeoff between cost and safety should be considered when policymakers regulate commercial use of the two vaccine types.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 20%
Engineering 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,828,915
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#2,651
of 6,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,725
of 324,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#32
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,317 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 324,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.