Use of expert opinion for animal disease decisions: An example of foot-and-mouth disease status designation

R. B. Garabed, A. M. Perez, W. O. Johnson, Mark Thurmond

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

When data representing a preferred measurement of risk cannot be obtained, as is often the case for global animal diseases, decisions that affect millions of people and their animals are typically made based on expert opinion. Expert opinion can be and has been used to address the critical lack of data existing for prevalence and incidence of many global diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). However, when a conclusion based on expert opinion applies to a topic as sensitive as FMD, which has tremendous economic, political, and social implications, care should be taken to understand the accuracy of and differences in the opinion data. The differences in experts' opinions and the relative accuracy of an expert opinion elicitation for "diagnosing" country-level FMD presence were examined for the years 1997-2003 using Bayesian methods. A formal survey of eight international FMD experts revealed that individual experts had different opinions as to the probability of finding FMD in a country. However, a weighted average of the experts' responses was relatively accurate (91% sensitivity and 85% specificity) at identifying the FMD status of a country, compared to using a method that employed information available from World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The most apparent disagreements between individual experts and available information were found for Indonesia, South Korea, and South America, and, in general, the experts seemed to believe that countries in South Asia were more likely to be positive than other countries that reported FMD cases to OIE. This study highlights new methodology that offers a standardized, quantitative, and systematic means by which expert opinion can be used and assessed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)20-30
Number of pages11
JournalPreventive Veterinary Medicine
Volume92
Issue number1-2
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2009

Fingerprint

Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Animal Diseases
expert opinion
foot-and-mouth disease
animal diseases
Expert Testimony
Republic of Korea
Bayes Theorem
Indonesia
South America
South Asia
South Korea
Bayesian theory
animal health
Economics
incidence
Sensitivity and Specificity
economics
Incidence
methodology

Keywords

  • Bayesian
  • Diagnostic test evaluation
  • Expert opinion
  • FMD
  • Linear regression
  • OIE

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Food Animals
  • Animal Science and Zoology

Cite this

Use of expert opinion for animal disease decisions : An example of foot-and-mouth disease status designation. / Garabed, R. B.; Perez, A. M.; Johnson, W. O.; Thurmond, Mark.

In: Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 92, No. 1-2, 01.11.2009, p. 20-30.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{747b204b497e478abbd7152134f3b9ac,
title = "Use of expert opinion for animal disease decisions: An example of foot-and-mouth disease status designation",
abstract = "When data representing a preferred measurement of risk cannot be obtained, as is often the case for global animal diseases, decisions that affect millions of people and their animals are typically made based on expert opinion. Expert opinion can be and has been used to address the critical lack of data existing for prevalence and incidence of many global diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). However, when a conclusion based on expert opinion applies to a topic as sensitive as FMD, which has tremendous economic, political, and social implications, care should be taken to understand the accuracy of and differences in the opinion data. The differences in experts' opinions and the relative accuracy of an expert opinion elicitation for {"}diagnosing{"} country-level FMD presence were examined for the years 1997-2003 using Bayesian methods. A formal survey of eight international FMD experts revealed that individual experts had different opinions as to the probability of finding FMD in a country. However, a weighted average of the experts' responses was relatively accurate (91{\%} sensitivity and 85{\%} specificity) at identifying the FMD status of a country, compared to using a method that employed information available from World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The most apparent disagreements between individual experts and available information were found for Indonesia, South Korea, and South America, and, in general, the experts seemed to believe that countries in South Asia were more likely to be positive than other countries that reported FMD cases to OIE. This study highlights new methodology that offers a standardized, quantitative, and systematic means by which expert opinion can be used and assessed.",
keywords = "Bayesian, Diagnostic test evaluation, Expert opinion, FMD, Linear regression, OIE",
author = "Garabed, {R. B.} and Perez, {A. M.} and Johnson, {W. O.} and Mark Thurmond",
year = "2009",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.06.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
pages = "20--30",
journal = "Preventive Veterinary Medicine",
issn = "0167-5877",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1-2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of expert opinion for animal disease decisions

T2 - An example of foot-and-mouth disease status designation

AU - Garabed, R. B.

AU - Perez, A. M.

AU - Johnson, W. O.

AU - Thurmond, Mark

PY - 2009/11/1

Y1 - 2009/11/1

N2 - When data representing a preferred measurement of risk cannot be obtained, as is often the case for global animal diseases, decisions that affect millions of people and their animals are typically made based on expert opinion. Expert opinion can be and has been used to address the critical lack of data existing for prevalence and incidence of many global diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). However, when a conclusion based on expert opinion applies to a topic as sensitive as FMD, which has tremendous economic, political, and social implications, care should be taken to understand the accuracy of and differences in the opinion data. The differences in experts' opinions and the relative accuracy of an expert opinion elicitation for "diagnosing" country-level FMD presence were examined for the years 1997-2003 using Bayesian methods. A formal survey of eight international FMD experts revealed that individual experts had different opinions as to the probability of finding FMD in a country. However, a weighted average of the experts' responses was relatively accurate (91% sensitivity and 85% specificity) at identifying the FMD status of a country, compared to using a method that employed information available from World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The most apparent disagreements between individual experts and available information were found for Indonesia, South Korea, and South America, and, in general, the experts seemed to believe that countries in South Asia were more likely to be positive than other countries that reported FMD cases to OIE. This study highlights new methodology that offers a standardized, quantitative, and systematic means by which expert opinion can be used and assessed.

AB - When data representing a preferred measurement of risk cannot be obtained, as is often the case for global animal diseases, decisions that affect millions of people and their animals are typically made based on expert opinion. Expert opinion can be and has been used to address the critical lack of data existing for prevalence and incidence of many global diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). However, when a conclusion based on expert opinion applies to a topic as sensitive as FMD, which has tremendous economic, political, and social implications, care should be taken to understand the accuracy of and differences in the opinion data. The differences in experts' opinions and the relative accuracy of an expert opinion elicitation for "diagnosing" country-level FMD presence were examined for the years 1997-2003 using Bayesian methods. A formal survey of eight international FMD experts revealed that individual experts had different opinions as to the probability of finding FMD in a country. However, a weighted average of the experts' responses was relatively accurate (91% sensitivity and 85% specificity) at identifying the FMD status of a country, compared to using a method that employed information available from World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The most apparent disagreements between individual experts and available information were found for Indonesia, South Korea, and South America, and, in general, the experts seemed to believe that countries in South Asia were more likely to be positive than other countries that reported FMD cases to OIE. This study highlights new methodology that offers a standardized, quantitative, and systematic means by which expert opinion can be used and assessed.

KW - Bayesian

KW - Diagnostic test evaluation

KW - Expert opinion

KW - FMD

KW - Linear regression

KW - OIE

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349298342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349298342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.06.010

DO - 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.06.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 19651451

AN - SCOPUS:70349298342

VL - 92

SP - 20

EP - 30

JO - Preventive Veterinary Medicine

JF - Preventive Veterinary Medicine

SN - 0167-5877

IS - 1-2

ER -