Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35515335›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2022

Epidemiological analyses of African swine fever in the European Union: (September 2020 to August 2021).

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Joaquín Vicente Baños, Anette Boklund, Andrey Gogin, Christian Gortázar, Vittorio Guberti, Georgina Helyes, Maria Kantere, Daniela Korytarova, Annick Linden and 18 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.5field-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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. African Swine Fever: A One Health Perspective and Global Challenges.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

28 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority)
Joaquín Vicente Baños
Anette Boklund
Andrey Gogin
Christian Gortázar
Vittorio Guberti
Georgina Helyes
Maria Kantere
Daniela Korytarova
Annick Linden
Marius Masiulis
Aleksandra Miteva
Ioana Neghirla
Edvins Oļševskis
Sasa Ostojic
Satran Petr
Christoph Staubach
Hans-Hermann Thulke
Arvo Viltrop
Grzegorz Wozniakowski
Alessandro Broglia
José Abrahantes Cortiñas
Sofie Dhollander
Lina Mur
Alexandra Papanikolaou
Yves Van der Stede
Gabriele Zancanaro
Karl Ståhl
Animal Welfare Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This report provides a descriptive analysis of the African swine fever (ASF) Genotype II epidemic in the affected Member States in the EU and two neighbouring countries for the period from 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021. ASF continued to spread in wild boar in the EU, it entered Germany in September 2020, while Belgium became free from ASF in October 2020. No ASF outbreaks in domestic pigs nor cases in wild boar have been reported in Greece since February 2020. In the Baltic States, overall, there has been a declining trend in proportions of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive samples from wild boar carcasses in the last few years. In the other countries, the proportions of PCR-positive wild boar carcasses remained high, indicating continuing spread of the disease. A systematic literature review revealed that the risk factors most frequently significantly associated with ASF in domestic pigs were pig density, low levels of biosecurity and socio-economic factors. For wild boar, most significant risk factors were related to habitat, socio-economic factors and wild boar management. The effectiveness of different control options in the so-named white zones, areas where wild boar densities have been drastically reduced to avoid further spread of ASF after a new introduction, was assessed with a stochastic model. Important findings were that establishing a white zone is much more challenging when the area of ASF incursion is adjacent to an area where limited control measures are in place. Very stringent wild boar population reduction measures in the white zone are key to success. The white zone needs to be far enough away from the affected core area so that the population can be reduced in time before the disease arrives and the timing of this will depend on the wild boar density and the required population reduction target in the white zone. Finally, establishing a proactive white zone along the demarcation line of an affected area requires higher culling efforts, but has a higher chance of success to stop the spread of the disease than establishing reactive white zones after the disease has already entered in the area.

Indexed as

ASFcontroldomestic pigsepidemiologyEUpreventionwhite zoneswild boar

Identifiers

PMID35515335
PMCPMC9066549
OpenAlexW4225379271

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.