Table 4.
Economic analysis of ELISA-based control measures
| Testing | Initial prevalence (%) a | Control | Average b | SD | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Once | 5 | None | 32.4 | 0.22 | |
| ELISA | 32.0 | 0.08 | −0.38c | ||
| EVELISA | 31.9 | 0.18 | −0.44c | ||
| 10 | None | 31.9 | 0.14 | ||
| ELISA | 31.4 | 0.14 | −0.53c | ||
| EVELISA | 31.3 | 0.19 | −0.61c | ||
| 20 | None | 31.5 | 0.18 | ||
| ELISA | 31.0 | 0.18 | −0.45c | ||
| EVELISA | 30.8 | 0.23 | −0.64c | ||
| Four times | 5 | None | 32.4 | 0.22 | |
| ELISA | 32.2 | 0.18 | −0.13 | ||
| EVELISA | 32.2 | 0.17 | −0.18 | ||
| 10 | None | 31.9 | 0.14 | ||
| ELISA | 32.0 | 0.16 | 0.01 | ||
| EVELISA | 32.0 | 0.11 | 0.07 | ||
| 20 | None | 31.5 | 0.18 | ||
| ELISA | 31.6 | 0.14 | 0.09 | ||
| EVELISA | 31.6 | 0.18 | 0.17 |
aPrevalence of shedders in adult population. The unit of the monetary numbers is million dollars/10 years a. Ten percent is the same distribution of prevalence shown in Table 3; bAverage revenue calculated from results of 10 simulations; and cstatistically different (ANOVA followed by t test with Bonferroni and Holm adjustments, p < 0.01) from no ELISA-based control.