Evaluation of the specificity of a commercial ELISA for detection of antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in individual oral fluid of pigs collected in two different ways.

Tatjana Sattler, Eveline Wodak, Friedrich Schmoll

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study

In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

3citing papers in PubMed

2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

Extraoral Detection of Biomarkers and Pathogens in Saliva: Comprehensive, Panoramic Review.Biosensors · 2026
Review
Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429): porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017
Article
Comparison of PRRSV Nucleic Acid and Antibody Detection in Pen-Based Oral Fluid and Individual Serum Samples in Three Different Age Categories of Post-Weaning Pigs from Endemically Infected Farms.PloS one · 2016
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tatjana SattlerLarge Animal Clinic for Internal Medicine, University of Leipzig, An den Tierkliniken 11, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. tasat@vetmed.uni-leipzig.de.

Eveline WodakInstitute for Veterinary Disease Control, AGES, Robert-Koch-Gasse 17, 2340, Mödling, Austria. eveline.wodak@ages.at.

Friedrich SchmollInstitute for Veterinary Disease Control, AGES, Robert-Koch-Gasse 17, 2340, Mödling, Austria. friedrich.schmoll@ages.at.

University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · ATLeipzig University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe monitoring of infectious diseases like the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) using pen-wise oral fluid samples becomes more and more established. The collection of individual oral fluid, which would be useful in the monitoring of PRRSV negative boar studs, is rather difficult. The aim of the study was to test two methods for individual oral fluid collection from pigs and to evaluate the specificity of a commercial ELISA for detection of PRRSV antibodies in these sample matrices. For this reason, 334 serum samples from PRRSV negative pigs (group 1) and 71 serum samples from PRRSV positive pigs (group 2) were tested for PRRSV antibodies with a commercial ELISA. Individual oral fluid was collected with a cotton gauze swab from 311 pigs from group 1 and 39 pigs from group 2. Furthermore, 312 oral fluid samples from group 1 and 67 oral fluid samples from group 2 were taken with a self-drying foam swab (GenoTube). The recollected oral fluid was then analysed twice with a commercial ELISA for detection of PRRSV antibodies in oral fluid.

resultsAll serum samples from group 1 tested negative for PRRSV antibodies. The collection of oral fluid was sufficient in all samples. Sampling with GenoTubes was less time consuming than sampling with cotton gauze swabs. False positive results were obtained in 7 (measure 1) respectively 9 (measure 2) oral fluid samples recollected from cotton gauze swabs and in 9 and 8 samples from GenoTubes. The specificity of the oral fluid ELISA was 97.4% for cotton gauze swabs and 97.3% for GenoTubes. 70 out of 71 serum samples and all oral fluid samples from group 2 tested positive for PRRSV antibodies. The sensitivity of the oral fluid ELISA was 100%. According to the kappa coefficient, the results showed an almost perfect agreement between serum and oral fluid collected in both ways (kappa > 0.8).

conclusionsBoth methods used for individual oral fluid collection proved to be practical and efficient and can be used for PRRSV antibody detection. It has to be considered, however, that false positive results may occur more often than in serum samples.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, ViralEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleMalePorcine Reproductive and Respiratory SyndromePorcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virusSalivaSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingSwineAntibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID25890153

DOI10.1186/s12917-015-0388-7

PMCPMC4367893

OpenAlexW2021889955

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.