Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30637117›Full record

ReviewPorcine health management2019

Epidemiological considerations on African swine fever in Europe 2014-2018.

Erika Chenais, Klaus Depner, Vittorio Guberti, Klaas Dietze, Arvo Viltrop, Karl Ståhl

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Porcine health management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 160 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
160citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
56.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

160 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 330 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

100 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Erika Chenais *1National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2601-1256
Klaus Depner *2Friedrich Loeffler Institute, Friedrich, Germany.
Vittorio Guberti3National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, Rome, Italy.
Klaas Dietze2Friedrich Loeffler Institute, Friedrich, Germany.
Arvo Viltrop4Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia.
Karl Ståhl1National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, Sweden.
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut · DESwedish Veterinary Agency · SEEstonian University of Life Sciences · EEInstitute of Environmental Protection · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2007 African swine fever (ASF) arrived at a Black Sea harbour in Georgia and in 2014 the infection reached the European Union (EU), where it still expands its territory. ASF is a fatal viral disease affecting domestic pigs and wild boar of all ages with clinical presentations ranging from per-acute to chronic disease, including apparently asymptomatic courses. Until the detection of the first case inside the EU, infections in the current epidemic were mainly seen among pig farms with generally low biosecurity, and with incidental spill over to the wild boar population. In the EU, however, the infection survived locally in the wild boar population independently from outbreaks in domestic pigs, with a steady and low prevalence. Apart from the wild boar population and the habitat, the current epidemic recognizes humans as the main responsible for both long distance transmission and virus introduction in the domestic pig farms. This underlines the importance to include social science when planning ASF-prevention, -control, or -eradication measures. Based on experiences, knowledge and data gained from the current epidemic this review highlights some recent developments in the epidemiological understanding of ASF, especially concerning the role of wild boar and their habitats in ASF epidemiology. In this regard, the qualities of three epidemiological traits: contagiousity, tenacity, and case fatality rate, and their impact on ASF persistence and transmission are especially discussed.

Indexed as

ASF transmissionBiosecurityContagiousityPigWild boar

Identifiers

PMID30637117
PMCPMC6325717
OpenAlexW2916615375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.