Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32625980›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2018

African swine fever in wild boar.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Simon More, Miguel Angel Miranda, Dominique Bicout, Anette Bøtner, Andrew Butterworth, Paolo Calistri, Sandra Edwards, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Margaret Good and 27 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Preemptive Wild Boar Reduction: A BridgeAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Odor Fences Have No Effect on Wild Boar Movement and Home Range Size.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 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

37 authors.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
Simon More
Miguel Angel Miranda
Dominique Bicout
Anette Bøtner
Andrew Butterworth
Paolo Calistri
Sandra Edwards
Bruno Garin-Bastuji
Margaret Good
Virginie Michel
Mohan Raj
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Liisa Sihvonen
Hans Spoolder
Jan Arend Stegeman
Antonio Velarde
Preben Willeberg
Christoph Winckler
Klaus Depner
Vittorio Guberti
Marius Masiulis
Edvins Olsevskis
Petr Satran
Mihaela Spiridon
Hans-Hermann Thulke
Arvo Vilrop
Grzegorz Wozniakowski
Andrea Bau
Alessandro Broglia
José Cortiñas Abrahantes
Sofie Dhollander
Andrey Gogin
Irene Muñoz Gajardo
Frank Verdonck
Laura Amato
Christian Gortázar Schmidt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Commission requested EFSA to compare the reliability of wild boar density estimates across the EU and to provide guidance to improve data collection methods. Currently, the only EU-wide available data are hunting data. Their collection methods should be harmonised to be comparable and to improve predictive models for wild boar density. These models could be validated by more precise density data, collected at local level e.g. by camera trapping. Based on practical and theoretical considerations, it is currently not possible to establish wild boar density thresholds that do not allow sustaining African swine fever (ASF). There are many drivers determining if ASF can be sustained or not, including heterogeneous population structures and human-mediated spread and there are still unknowns on the importance of different transmission modes in the epidemiology. Based on extensive literature reviews and observations from affected Member States, the efficacy of different wild boar population reduction and separation methods is evaluated. Different wild boar management strategies at different stages of the epidemic are suggested. Preventive measures to reduce and stabilise wild boar density, before ASF introduction, will be beneficial both in reducing the probability of exposure of the population to ASF and the efforts needed for potential emergency actions (i.e. less carcass removal) if an ASF incursion were to occur. Passive surveillance is the most effective and efficient method of surveillance for early detection of ASF in free areas. Following focal ASF introduction, the wild boar populations should be kept undisturbed for a short period (e.g. hunting ban on all species, leave crops unharvested to provide food and shelter within the affected area) and drastic reduction of the wild boar population may be performed only ahead of the ASF advance front, in the free populations. Following the decline in the epidemic, as demonstrated through passive surveillance, active population management should be reconsidered.

Indexed as

African swine feverpassive surveillancepopulation densitypopulation density thresholdpopulation reductionpopulation separationwild boar

Identifiers

PMID32625980
PMCPMC7009363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.