↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of a protocol to identify and recruit participants into a large scale study on liver fluke in cattle

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Development and validation of a protocol to identify and recruit participants into a large scale study on liver fluke in cattle
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12917-018-1511-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine M. McCann, Helen E. Clough, Matthew Baylis, Diana J. L. Williams

Abstract

Liver fluke infection caused by the parasite Fasciola hepatica is a major cause of production losses to the cattle industry in the UK. To investigate farm-level risk factors for fluke infection, a randomised method to recruit an appropriate number of herds from a defined geographical area into the study was required. The approach and hurdles that were encountered in designing and implementing this study are described. The county of Shropshire, England, was selected for the study because of the variation between farms in exposure to fluke infection observed in an earlier study. From a sampling list of 569 holdings in Shropshire randomly drawn from the RADAR cattle population dataset, 396 (69.6%) holdings were successfully contacted by telephone and asked if they would be interested in taking part in the study. Of 296 farmers who agreed to receive information packs by post, 195 (65.9%) agreed to take part in the study. Over the period October 2014 - April 2015 visits were made to 100 dairy and 95 non-dairy herds. During the farm visits 40 faecal samples +/- bulk-tank milk samples were collected and a questionnaire administered. Composite faecal samples were analysed for the presence of F. hepatica eggs by sedimentation and bulk tank milk samples were tested with an antibody ELISA for F. hepatica. Forty-five (49%) of non-dairy herds were positive for liver fluke infection as determined by the finding of one or more fluke eggs, while 36 (36%) dairy herds had fluke positive faecal samples and 41 (41%) dairy herds were positive for F. hepatica antibody. Eighty-seven (45.8%) farmers said that they monitored their cattle for liver fluke infection and 118 (62.1%) reported that they used flukicide drugs in their cattle. Using a protocol of contacting farmers directly by telephone and subsequently sending information by post, 79% of the target sample size was successfully recruited into the study. A dataset of farm-specific information on possible risk factors for liver fluke infection and corresponding liver-fluke infection status was generated for the development of statistical models to identify risk factors for liver fluke infection at the farm-level.

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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 18%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#18,639,173
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#1,943
of 3,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,813
of 328,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#49
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,078 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 328,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.