ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2022
African Swine Fever Outbreak Investigations-The Significance of Disease-Related Anecdotal Information Coming from Laypersons.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Selective Culling as a Containment Strategy for African Swine Fever at a Vietnamese Sow Farm.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Investigation of the First African Swine Fever Outbreak in a Domestic Pig Farm in Hong Kong.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Veterinarians who have conducted numerous investigations of African swine fever outbreaks in pig farms in various European countries over the years shared their experiences during a workshop in Germany in early 2020. One focus was on the so-called "anecdotal information" obtained from farmers, farm workers or other lay people during the outbreak investigations. Discussions revolved around how to correctly interpret and classify such information and how the subjective character of the statements can influence follow-up examinations. The statements of the lay persons were grouped into three categories according to their plausibility: (i) statements that were plausible and prompted further investigation, (ii) statements that were not plausible and could therefore be ignored, and (iii) statements that were rather implausible but should not be ignored completely. The easiest to deal with were statements that could be classified without doubt as important and very plausible and statements that were not plausible at all. Particularly difficult to assess were statements that had a certain plausibility and could not be immediately dismissed out of hand. We aim to show that during outbreak investigations, one is confronted with human subjective stories that are difficult to interpret but still important to understand the overall picture. Here, we present and briefly discuss an arbitrary selection of reports made by lay persons during outbreak investigations.
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.