Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35490407›Full record

SynthesisTransboundary and emerging diseases2022

Risk factors for the spread of African Swine Fever in China: A systematic review of Chinese-language literature.

Jieming Cheng, Michael P Ward

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.5field-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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sustainability and future outlook of the Philippine pig industry.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Analysis of the Microbial Community Structure ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jieming ChengSydney School of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael P WardSydney School of Veterinary Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9921-4986
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV) is a contagious pathogen that can cause severe acute haemorrhagic fever in pigs. The first occurrence of an ASF outbreak in Asia was reported in China in August 2018. The devastating impacts caused by ASF on the pig industry have strongly focused research on risk factors for the spread of ASFV. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the potential knowledge gap in the English literature on risk factors for the spread of ASFV in outbreaks that occurred in China, 2018-2020. China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) was searched as the primary database. Sixty-four records were screened, and 31 (48%) records were included in data extraction. These records were also assessed for quality of evidence. Frequency tables for reported risks were created, considering quality of evidence. A narrative summary of mortality rate and case fatality rate reported in a small number of records was made. Mortality rate was reported in seven studies, ranging from 3.7% to 84.0% (median 11.9%). Case fatality rate was reported in six studies, ranging from 20.6% to 100% (median 63.3%). Based on 31 reviewed records, live pig transport, swill feeding and vehicles were the three most important risks for spread contributing to the ASF epidemic in China. Bites of infected Ornithodoros ticks was stated in 12 low level of evidence records but only 1 high level of evidence record as a risk factor for transmission. Direct contact with wild pigs was reported to be a risk factor in 8 records with low level of evidence, and 1 record from the high level of evidence group. However, limited evidence was provided to support the tick-domestic pig or wild pig-domestic pig transmission routes in China. Lack of resources to obtain veterinary assistance and to improve husbandry and biosecurity was mentioned four times in the 31 records, especially in remote rural areas. In conclusion, to effectively control the spread of ASF, it is very important to reduce mechanical dissemination of ASFV by vehicles and live pig transport involved in the production cycle and to ensure that transported pigs are always subject to inspection and quarantine. Additionally, despite strict implementation of prohibition on swill feeding often being impractical or nearly impossible, ensuring the safety of pig feed can greatly contribute to disease prevention. Improvement in biosecurity management, specifically environment disinfection, carcass disposal, and decontamination of vehicles and personnel will be most effective in reducing the risk of infection in small-scale pig farms.

Indexed as

African Swine FeverAfrican Swine Fever VirusSwine DiseasesAnimalsDisease OutbreaksLanguageRisk FactorsSus scrofaSwineAfrican Swine FeverChinaepidemiologypigspreadtransmission risk

Identifiers

PMID35490407
PMCPMC9790558
OpenAlexW4225246957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-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.