Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34306220›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2021

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Classical Swine Fever.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Active Participatory Regional Surveillance for Notifiable Swine Pathogens.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Eleven Years of Health Monitoring in Wild Boars (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 (AHAW)
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Julio Alvarez
Dominique Joseph Bicout
Paolo Calistri
Elisabetta Canali
Julian Ashley Drewe
Bruno Garin-Bastuji
José Luis Gonzales Rojas
Christian Gortázar Schmidt
Mette Herskin
Virginie Michel
Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca
Barbara Padalino
Paolo Pasquali
Liisa Helena Sihvonen
Hans Spoolder
Karl Ståhl
Antonio Velarde
Arvo Viltrop
Christoph Winckler
Simon Gubbins
Jan Arend Stegeman
Sotiria-Eleni Antoniou
Inma Aznar
Alessandro Broglia
Eliana Lima
Yves Van der Stede
Gabriele Zancanaro
Helen Clare Roberts

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 Classical swine fever (CSF). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, 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, details of the model used for answering these questions are presented in this opinion as well as the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Here, several recommendations are given on how to increase the effectiveness of some of the sampling procedures. Based on the average length of the period between virus introduction and the reporting of a CSF suspicion, the monitoring period was assessed as non-effective. In a similar way, it was recommended that the length of the measures in the protection and surveillance zones were increased from 15 to 25 days in the protection zone and from 30 to 40 days in the surveillance zone. Finally, the analysis of existing Kernels for CSF suggested that the radius of the protection and the surveillance zones comprise 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. 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 CSF.

Indexed as

CSFdisease controlinterventionmonitoring periodprotection zonesampling proceduressurveillance zone

Identifiers

PMID34306220
PMCPMC8294054

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.