Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
Quantitative risk assessment for infectious disease introduction in animal populations: a comprehensive review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marques Ana Rita Pinheiro, Gonzalez Villeta Laura, Simons Robin, Horigan Verity, de Vos Clazien, Conrady Beate
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Quantitative risk assessments (QRA) are valuable decision-support tools for estimating disease introduction risks in animal populations.
METHODS: This review analyzed peer-reviewed QRA studies published between 2010 and 2024 that focused on risk of introduction, aiming to identify methodological trends and challenges.
RESULTS: From the 1,933 studies screened, only 34 (2%) met inclusion criteria, primarily assessing risk through movements of live animals (n = 20), animal products (n = 7), both live animals and their products (n = 2), or vectors (n = 5), with no studies addressing aquatic animals. Most QRAs focused on livestock (n= 11 ruminants, n = 6 swine, n = 4 poultry, n = 2 equids and n = 1 ruminants and swine) and diseases like Foot-and-mouth disease, Rabies, Lumpy skin disease, and African swine fever using stochastic approaches, frequently based on scenario tree and WOAH based methodology and supported by expert opinion. Cluster and network analyses revealed distinct methodological groupings and two main collaboration hubs in Europe and the United States.
CONCLUSION: Key gaps included limited coverage of certain animal species, pathogens, and consequence assessments, with a predominant focus on import risks. Addressing these limitations can strengthen future QRAs as input for animal disease management.
METHODS: This review analyzed peer-reviewed QRA studies published between 2010 and 2024 that focused on risk of introduction, aiming to identify methodological trends and challenges.
RESULTS: From the 1,933 studies screened, only 34 (2%) met inclusion criteria, primarily assessing risk through movements of live animals (n = 20), animal products (n = 7), both live animals and their products (n = 2), or vectors (n = 5), with no studies addressing aquatic animals. Most QRAs focused on livestock (n= 11 ruminants, n = 6 swine, n = 4 poultry, n = 2 equids and n = 1 ruminants and swine) and diseases like Foot-and-mouth disease, Rabies, Lumpy skin disease, and African swine fever using stochastic approaches, frequently based on scenario tree and WOAH based methodology and supported by expert opinion. Cluster and network analyses revealed distinct methodological groupings and two main collaboration hubs in Europe and the United States.
CONCLUSION: Key gaps included limited coverage of certain animal species, pathogens, and consequence assessments, with a predominant focus on import risks. Addressing these limitations can strengthen future QRAs as input for animal disease management.