ArticleBMC veterinary research2025
Assessment of hunters' awareness of African swine fever in Samara Oblast, the Russian federation.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. 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.
- Integrated Hunting Strategies for African Swine Fever Control in Wild Boar: A Comparative Review of Experiences in European Continent.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Detection and genetic characterization of atypical porcine pestivirus in wild boars in European Russia.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfrican swine fever (ASF) continues to threaten the global pig industry, primarily due to the absence of effective treatments and vaccines, complicating disease management. Control measures depend on strict quarantine protocols, including culling infected animals and reducing wild boar populations. Effective ASF management in the wild involves controlling these populations, adhering to biosafety standards while hunting, identifying and safely disposing of boar carcasses, and isolating affected areas. Hunters are crucial for early ASF detection through both passive and active surveillance, influenced by their motivation and adherence to safety protocols.
resultsA pilot survey among hunters in an ASF-affected Russian region assessed attitudes toward control measures. The results showed skepticism about the effectiveness of individual hunting bans and additional feeding sites, although measures preventing wild boar-domestic pig contact and banning wild boar meat harvesting in affected areas were favored. The survey results also revealed shortcomings in hunters' compliance with biosafety measures, such as disinfection methods, proper disposal of carcasses after butchering and lack of interaction with state veterinary services.
conclusionsEvaluating hunters' perspectives and active involvement in control efforts are crucial for effective ASF management. Hunter surveys serve as valuable tools for gathering information and should be utilized globally to enhance ASF control and hunting season biosecurity.
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.