Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33552298›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2021

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: African Swine Fever.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (EFSA AHAW Panel), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, José Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt and 20 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Biotic and Abiotic Factors Influencing Maize Plant Height.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Active Participatory Regional Surveillance for Notifiable Swine Pathogens.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

30 authors.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (EFSA AHAW Panel)
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Julio Alvarez
Dominique Joseph Bicout
Paolo Calistri
Klaus Depner
Julian Ashley Drewe
Bruno Garin-Bastuji
José Luis Gonzales Rojas
Christian Gortázar Schmidt
Mette Herskin
Virginie Michel
Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca
Paolo Pasquali
Helen Clare Roberts
Liisa Helena Sihvonen
Hans Spoolder
Karl Ståhl
Antonio Velarde
Arvo Viltrop
Christoph Winckler
Kris De Clercq
Eyal Klement
Jan Arend Stegeman
Simon Gubbins
Sotiria-Eleni Antoniou
Alessandro Broglia
Yves Van der Stede
Gabriele Zancanaro
Inma Aznar

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases ('Animal Health Law'). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for African Swine Fever (ASF). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts reviewed the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zone, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, specific details of the model used for the assessment of the laboratory sampling procedures for ASF are presented here. Here, also, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. In summary, several sampling procedures as described in the diagnostic manual for ASF were considered ineffective and a suggestion to exclude, or to substitute with more effective procedures was made. The monitoring period was assessed as non-effective for several scenarios and a longer monitoring period was suggested to ensure detection of potentially infected herds. It was demonstrated that the surveillance zone comprises 95% of the infections from an affected establishment, and therefore is considered effective. Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to ASF.

Indexed as

African Swine Feverdisease control measuresSuidsvector borne disease

Identifiers

PMID33552298
PMCPMC7848183

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.