UC Davis BRD Risk
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 113 keywords for UC Davis BRD Risk in Google Play
UC Davis BRD Risk tracks 113 keywords (no keywords rank yet; 113 need traction). Key metrics: opportunity 71.2, difficulty 41.5.
The California (CA) BRD scoring system was developed by researchers
Tracked keywords
113
0 ranked • 113 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
—
Best rank — • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
71.2
Top keyword: university
Avg difficulty
41.5
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 66.1
university
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.8 • Rank —
Competitors: 178
- 64.8
patient
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.4 • Rank —
Competitors: 202
- 62.1
aid
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 38.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 373
- 60.2
sample
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 264
- 63.8
guess
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.9 • Rank —
Competitors: 600
Unranked opportunities
university
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.8 • Competitors: 178
patient
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.4 • Competitors: 202
aid
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 38.9 • Competitors: 373
sample
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 39.5 • Competitors: 264
guess
Opportunity: 74.0 • Difficulty: 40.9 • Competitors: 600
High competition keywords
mobile
Total apps: 280,137 • Major competitors: 11,113
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.7
information
Total apps: 266,570 • Major competitors: 8,201
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.8
best
Total apps: 254,613 • Major competitors: 18,469
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 57.4
using
Total apps: 222,771 • Major competitors: 12,246
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 56.9
us
Total apps: 189,644 • Major competitors: 9,461
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.3
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| best | 66 | 100 | 57 | 86 254,613 competing apps Median installs: 4,002 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 18,469 major competitor apps |
| health | 69 | 100 | 49 | 77 69,249 competing apps Median installs: 762 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 1,958 major competitor apps |
| 69 | 100 | 50 | 77 69,200 competing apps Median installs: 2,525 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 3,074 major competitor apps | |
| version | 70 | 100 | 54 | 76 56,820 competing apps Median installs: 4,916 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 3,381 major competitor apps |
| device | 68 | 100 | 60 | 80 107,461 competing apps Median installs: 3,348 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 6,783 major competitor apps |
| users | 67 | 100 | 53 | 82 136,480 competing apps Median installs: 1,397 Avg rating: 2.3 | — | — | 5,492 major competitor apps |
| language | 69 | 100 | 53 | 76 61,765 competing apps Median installs: 3,035 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 2,685 major competitor apps |
| contact | 67 | 100 | 54 | 82 137,850 competing apps Median installs: 1,796 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 6,297 major competitor apps |
| information | 65 | 100 | 55 | 86 266,570 competing apps Median installs: 1,188 Avg rating: 2.2 | — | — | 8,201 major competitor apps |
| used | 68 | 100 | 55 | 81 116,554 competing apps Median installs: 3,110 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 5,170 major competitor apps |
| control | 67 | 100 | 54 | 82 135,086 competing apps Median installs: 1,839 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 7,479 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 57 | 85 222,771 competing apps Median installs: 2,854 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 12,246 major competitor apps |
| option | 70 | 100 | 49 | 74 47,347 competing apps Median installs: 3,018 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 2,530 major competitor apps |
| mobile | 65 | 100 | 56 | 87 280,137 competing apps Median installs: 1,439 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 11,113 major competitor apps |
| score | 71 | 100 | 48 | 74 42,133 competing apps Median installs: 1,562 Avg rating: 2.5 | — | — | 2,033 major competitor apps |
| university | 74 | 100 | 41 | 66 14,112 competing apps Median installs: 1,719 Avg rating: 1.9 | — | — | 178 major competitor apps |
| patient | 74 | 100 | 39 | 65 11,649 competing apps Median installs: 605 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 202 major competitor apps |
| researchers | 72 | 100 | 32 | 52 1,753 competing apps Median installs: 985 Avg rating: 2.0 | — | — | 32 major competitor apps |
| upon | 73 | 100 | 42 | 67 17,051 competing apps Median installs: 3,097 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 654 major competitor apps |
| culture | 73 | 100 | 41 | 67 15,937 competing apps Median installs: 1,010 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 389 major competitor apps |
| aid | 74 | 100 | 39 | 62 7,860 competing apps Median installs: 2,878 Avg rating: 2.6 | — | — | 373 major competitor apps |
| producer | 71 | 100 | 33 | 48 1,019 competing apps Median installs: 1,316 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 53 major competitor apps |
| love | 68 | 100 | 56 | 81 116,594 competing apps Median installs: 5,439 Avg rating: 2.7 | — | — | 9,128 major competitor apps |
| following | 69 | 100 | 53 | 77 64,929 competing apps Median installs: 3,714 Avg rating: 2.4 | — | — | 3,325 major competitor apps |
| school | 70 | 100 | 48 | 76 56,767 competing apps Median installs: 869 Avg rating: 2.1 | — | — | 1,907 major competitor apps |
App Description
The California (CA) BRD scoring system was developed by researchers
The app can be used as an aid to the herd veterinarian and producer in the prevention and control of pneumonia in pre-weaned dairy calves under the Veterinary Client Patient Relationship. Calves can be scored to determine their CA BRD score status and results stored in a searchable database on the user’s mobile device.
Users can also estimate the prevalence of BRD in a herd of calves by scoring a random sample of calves that the app identifies upon providing the herd size and the required inputs for a sample size formula or accepting the defaults for a best guess prevalence estimate (25%) and how tight of a 95% confidence interval is desired (10% bound).
Similarly, the Spanish version is accessible once the device language is switched.
Under settings, users can switch between Celsius and Fahrenheit temperature input and elect to email questions and results to the Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research Center, UC Davis if that option is selected.
The CA BRD scoring system for preweaned dairy calves is based on the following research and referenced methods:
1 – Agreement between bovine respiratory disease scoring systems for pre-weaned dairy calves. Aly SS, Love WJ, Williams DR, Lehenbauer TW, Van Eenennaam A, Drake C, Kass PH, Farver TB. Anim Health Res Rev. 2014; 15:148-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25424381
2 – Development of a novel clinical scoring system for on-farm diagnosis of bovine respiratory disease in pre-weaned dairy calves. Love WJ, Lehenbauer TW, Kass PH, Van Eenennaam AL, Aly SS. PeerJ. 2014; 2;2:e238.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24482759
3– Sensitivity and specificity of on-farm scoring systems and nasal culture to detect bovine respiratory disease complex in preweaned dairy calves. Love WJ, Lehenbauer TW, Van Eenennaam AL, Drake CM, Kass PH, Farver TB, Aly SS. J Vet Diagn Invest. 2016; 28:119-28.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26796957
4 - Scheaffer, R. L., W. Mendenhall, and R. L. Ott. 1995. Elementary Survey Sampling. 5th ed. Duxbury Press, Belmont, MA.
For more information contact us at: brd@vmtrc.ucdavis.edu