Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35745556›Full record

ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2022

African Swine Fever Outbreak Investigations-The Significance of Disease-Related Anecdotal Information Coming from Laypersons.

Kristīne Lamberga, Felix Ardelean, Sandra Blome, Paulius Busauskas, Boban Djuric, Anja Globig, Vittorio Guberti, Aleksandra Miteva, Edvins Oļševskis, Mārtiņš Seržants and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

14 authors.

Kristīne LambergaFood and Veterinary Service, LV-1050 Riga, Latvia.
Felix ArdeleanCounty Sanitary Veterinary Health and Food Safety Directorate, 4400067 Satu Mare, Romania.
Sandra BlomeFriedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Greifswald-Insel Riems, 17493 Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5465-5609
Paulius BusauskasEmergency Response Division, State Food and Veterinary Service, LT-07170 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Boban DjuricVeterinary Directorate, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, 1 Omladinskih Brigade St., 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.
Anja GlobigFriedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Greifswald-Insel Riems, 17493 Greifswald, Germany.
Vittorio GubertiNational Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Italy.
Aleksandra MitevaAnimal Health Department Bulgarian Food Safety Agency, 1606 Sofia, Bulgaria.
Edvins OļševskisFood and Veterinary Service, LV-1050 Riga, Latvia.
Mārtiņš SeržantsFood and Veterinary Service, LV-1050 Riga, Latvia.
Arvo ViltropVeterinaarmeditsiini Ja Loomakasvatuse Instituut, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 5106 Tartu, Estonia.ORCID 0000-0003-0133-980X
Laura ZaniFriedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Greifswald-Insel Riems, 17493 Greifswald, Germany.
Anna ZdravkovaAnimal Health Department Bulgarian Food Safety Agency, 1606 Sofia, Bulgaria.
Klaus DepnerFriedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Greifswald-Insel Riems, 17493 Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

anamnesesASFlaypersonsoutbreak investigationsubjectivity

Identifiers

PMID35745556
PMCPMC9229628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.