Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30862947›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Epidemiological evaluation of Latvian control measures for African swine fever in wild boar on the basis of surveillance data.

Katja Schulz, Edvīns Oļševskis, Christoph Staubach, Kristīne Lamberga, Mārtiņš Seržants, Svetlana Cvetkova, Franz Josef Conraths, Carola Sauter-Louis

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.5field-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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Katja SchulzFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany. katja.schulz@fli.de.ORCID 0000-0003-1816-6554
Edvīns OļševskisFood and Veterinary Service, Riga, Peldu 30, LV-1050, Latvia.
Christoph StaubachFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Kristīne LambergaFood and Veterinary Service, Riga, Peldu 30, LV-1050, Latvia.
Mārtiņš SeržantsFood and Veterinary Service, Riga, Peldu 30, LV-1050, Latvia.
Svetlana CvetkovaInstitute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment - "BIOR", Riga, Lejupes 3, LV-1076, Latvia.
Franz Josef ConrathsFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7400-9409
Carola Sauter-LouisFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Epidemiology, Südufer 10, 17493, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut · DEInstitute of Food Safety, Animal Health and Environment “BIOR” · LV

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A wild boar population infected with African Swine Fever (ASF) constitutes a constant threat to commercial pig farms and therefore to the economy of the affected country. Currently, ASF is still spreading in several countries and the implementation of intensive measures such as reducing wild boar population densities seems not to be able to stop the further spread of the disease. In addition, there are still substantial knowledge gaps regarding the epidemiology of the disease. To identify risk factors for a higher probability of a wild boar sample being virological or serological positive, comprehensive statistical analyses were performed based on Latvian surveillance data. Using a multivariable Bayesian regression model, the effects of implemented control measures on the proportion of hunted or found dead wild boar or on the estimated virus prevalence were evaluated. None of the control measures applied in Latvia showed a significant effect on the relevant target figure. Also, the estimated periodic prevalence of wild boar that had tested ASF positive by PCR appeared to remain unaffected over time. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reconsider the implemented control measures. The results of this study and the course of ASF in other affected countries, raise the question, whether an endemic situation of ASF in wild boar is reversible.

Indexed as

African Swine Fever VirusAfrican Swine FeverAnimalsLatviaPrevalenceSwine

Identifiers

PMID30862947
PMCPMC6414528
OpenAlexW2922320603

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.