ArticleVeterinary research2016
How to survey classical swine fever in wild boar (Sus scrofa) after the completion of oral vaccination? Chasing away the ghost of infection at different spatial scales.
Article in Veterinary research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitivity and Specificity Assessment of Various African Swine Fever ELISA Kits for Accurate Detection of Seropositive Wild Boar.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Spatial Epidemiology and Its Role in Prevention and Control of Swine Viral Disease.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Article
- Red deer (Viruses · 2019Article
- A Review of African Swine Fever and the Potential for Introduction into the United States and the Possibility of Subsequent Establishment in Feral Swine and Native Ticks.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2018Review
- A Review of Classical Swine Fever Virus and Routes of Introduction into the United States and the Potential for Virus Establishment.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral mass vaccination (OMV) is considered as an efficient strategy for controlling classical swine fever (CSF) in wild boar. After the completion of vaccination, the presence of antibodies in 6-12 month-old hunted wild boars was expected to reflect a recent CSF circulation. Nevertheless, antibodies could also correspond to the long-lasting of maternal antibodies. This paper relates an experience of surveillance which lasted 4 years after the completion of OMV in a formerly vaccinated area, in north-eastern France (2010-2014). First, we conducted a retrospective analysis of the serological data collected in 6-12 month-old hunted wild boars from 2010 up to 2013, using a spatial Bayesian model accounting for hunting data autocorrelation and heterogeneity. At the level of the whole area, seroprevalence in juvenile boars decreased from 28% in 2010-2011 down to 1% in 2012-2013, but remained locally high (above 5%). The model revealed the existence of one particular seroprevalence hot-spot where a longitudinal survey of marked animals was conducted in 2013-2014, for deciphering the origin of antibodies. Eleven out of 107 captured piglets were seropositive when 3-4 months-old, but their antibody titres progressively decreased until 6-7 months of age. These results suggest piglets were carrying maternal antibodies, few of them carrying maternal antibodies lasting until the hunting season. Our study shows that OMV may generate confusion in the CSF surveillance several years after the completion of vaccination. We recommend using quantitative serological tools, hunting data modelling and capture approaches for better interpreting serological results after vaccination completion. Surveillance perspectives are further discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.