Comparison of veterinary import risk analyses studies

C.J. de Vos-de Jong, F.J. Conraths, A. Adkin, E.M. Jones, G.S. Hallgren, L.G. Paisley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


Twenty-two veterinary import risk analyses (IRAs) were audited: a) for inclusion of the main elements of risk analysis; b) between different types of IRAs; c) between reviewers' scores. No significant differences were detected between different types of IRAs, although quantitative IRAs and IRAs published in peer-reviewed journals tended to have higher scores than qualitative and report-published IRAs. Unexpectedly, no difference in scores was observed between IRAs that were classified as adhering to the OIE guidelines and those that did not. Reviewer bias was detected for the absolute scores given to the IRAs, although ranking of IRAs was reasonably consistent across reviewers. The audit spreadsheet should undergo further adaptation with a focus on hazard identification and risk assessment. We recommend that reviewing IRAs using the audit spreadsheet be done by a multidisciplinary group that comprises both specialists on risk assessment methodology and on the risk that is assessed
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)330-348
JournalInternational Journal of Risk Assessment and Management
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of veterinary import risk analyses studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this