ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- African swine fever control in the context of endemic persistence.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- African Swine Fever: A One Health Perspective and Global Challenges.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Local ASF challenges: the Philippine perspective on ASF stamping-out policy.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of two pen-side tests for detecting African swine fever virus in experimentally infected pigs.Archives of virology · 2024Article
- Modeling Singapore's First African Swine Fever Outbreak in Wild Boar Populations.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2024Article
- Innovative Research Offers New Hope for Managing African Swine Fever Better in Resource-Limited Smallholder Farming Settings: A Timely Update.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evidence of aerosol transmission of African swine fever virus between two piggeries under field conditions: a case study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- A practical guide for strategic and efficient sampling in African swine fever-affected pig farms.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2022Article
- Implications of partial culling on African swine fever control effectiveness in Vietnam.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Porcine respiratory disease complex: Dynamics of polymicrobial infections and management strategies after the introduction of the African swine fever.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Review
- Sleeping with the enemy: Maintaining ASF-free farms in affected areas.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Global Challenges and Advancements in the Management of Pivotal Porcine/Swine Viral Diseases.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As African swine fever (ASF) continues to expand geographically, supplementary control strategies are needed to reduce disease risk and impact in affected areas. Full depopulation is central to current ASF control efforts, and its efficacy depends on surveillance and timely disease reporting, while resulting in large losses regardless of the producers' efforts to promptly detect, report, and contain the disease. This disconnect between prompt detection and reporting, and subsequent farm losses, can deter producers to invest in ASF detection and control. Alternative approaches are needed to incentivize individual producers to invest in early detection and reporting. We postulate that commercial swine farms may be effectively partitioned in separate units, or subpopulations, to which biosecurity, surveillance and control can be applied. The suggested Partitioning framework relies on three main components: 1. external and internal biosecurity to reduce the risk of ASF introduction and maintain separate subpopulations; 2. cost-effective on-farm ASF surveillance to enhance early detection; 3. response plans at the unit level, including culling of affected subpopulations, and demonstration of freedom from disease on the remaining ones. With such Partitioning approach, individual producers may reduce ASF risk on a farm and in the region, while also reducing ASF outbreak losses via targeted depopulation of affected units. It requires relevant legislation to incorporate the notion of within-farm subpopulations and provide a regulatory framework for targeted depopulation and substantiation of disease freedom. Its design should be tailored to fit individual farms. Partitioning can be an effective public-private partnership approach for ASF risk reduction. It should be driven by industry, as its benefits are accrued mainly by individual producers, but regulatory oversight is key to ensure proper implementation and avoid further disease spread. Partitioning's value is greatest for producers in ASF-affected regions, but ASF-free areas could also benefit from it for preparedness and early detection. It could also be adapted to other transboundary animal diseases and can be implemented as a stand-alone program or in conjunction with other efforts such as zoning and compartmentalization. Partitioning would contribute to the improved resilience and sustainability of the global pork industry and will benefit consumers and society through improved food security and animal welfare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.