ArticleInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2012
Sensitivity of oral fluids for detecting influenza A virus in populations of vaccinated and non-vaccinated pigs.
Article in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- Litter-Level Agreement of RT-qPCR Results for Influenza A Virus Between Oropharyngeal Swab, Udder Wipe, and Nasal Wipe Samples Collected in Chilean Swine Breeding Herds.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Pilot Assessment of RNA Stabilization Methods for Influenza A Virus in Swine Oral Fluids.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Animal Welfare-Friendly Noninvasive Oral Fluid in Swine Diagnostics: Current Applications in Disease Monitoring, Key Challenges and Future Directions.Veterinary medicine international · 2026Review
- Epidemiological trends of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic Escherichia coli in swine farms from the Northwest Iberian Peninsula and evaluation of air sampling for antibiotic resistance surveillance.Porcine health management · 2025Article
- Evaluating preventive measures for the zoonotic transmission of swine influenza A variant at agricultural fairs in the United States: a mathematical modeling study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Macroepidemiological trends of Influenza A virus detection through reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR) in porcine samples in the United States over the last 20 years.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Estimating the risk of zoonotic transmission of swine influenza A variant during agricultural fairs in the United States: a mathematical modeling.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization.Porcine health management · 2024Article
- Influenza A virus shedding and reinfection during the post-weaning period in swine: longitudinal study of two nurseries.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Identification of Estrus in Sows Based on Salivary Proteomics.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- An evaluation of the InDevR FluChip-8G insight microarray assay in characterizing influenza a viruses.Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines · 2021Article
- Noninvasive strategies for surveillance of swine viral diseases: a review.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2020Review
- Guidelines for oral fluid-based surveillance of viral pathogens in swine.Porcine health management · 2020Review
- Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
- Prospective surveillance for influenza. virus in Chinese swine farms.Emerging microbes & infections · 2018Article
- Detection of influenza A virus in aerosols of vaccinated and non-vaccinated pigs in a warm environment.PloS one · 2018Article
- Multiple Genome Constellations of Similar and Distinct Influenza A Viruses Co-Circulate in Pigs During Epidemic Events.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Influenza Herd-Level Prevalence and Seasonality in Breed-to-Wean Pig Farms in the Midwestern United States.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2017Article
- The use of oral fluids to monitor key pathogens in porcine respiratory disease complex.Porcine health management · 2017Article
- Bioaerosol Sampling in Modern Agriculture: A Novel Approach for Emerging Pathogen Surveillance?The Journal of infectious diseases · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveWe evaluated the sensitivity of PCR on oral fluids in detecting influenza virus in vaccinated and non-vaccinated pigs.
methodsThree-week-old influenza-free pigs were divided into three groups: (i) control, non-vaccinated, (ii) vaccinated with a commercial, heterologous vaccine, and (iii) vaccinated with an experimental, homologous vaccine. After vaccination, an influenza-infected pig was placed in contact with each of the groups. Individual nasal swabs and pen oral fluids were collected daily. Viral RNA was tested for the presence of influenza by RRT-PCR and virus isolation attempted from oral fluids. A pen was considered positive if at least one nasal swab was positive.
resultsBased on nasal swab results, 43·8% of pens were detected positive but only 35% based on oral fluids. Overall sensitivity of oral fluids was 80%, and virus was isolated from 51% of RRT-PCR-positive oral fluids. The kappa coefficient for agreement (ĸ) between oral fluids and nasal swabs was 0·82. Among groups, ĸ was 1 (95% CI, 1-1), 0·74 (95% CI, 0·55-0·92), and 0·76 (95% CI, 0·5-1) for control, heterologous, and homologous-vaccinated groups, respectively. There was less agreement when within pen prevalence was 10% or less. Probability of detecting influenza virus in oral fluids was 99% when within pen prevalence was higher than 18% and decreased to 69% when prevalence was 9%.
conclusionsResults indicated that pen-based collection of oral fluids is a sensitive method to detect influenza even when within pen prevalence is low and when pigs have been vaccinated and highlight the potential use of oral fluids for influenza surveillance.
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.