Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26072369›Full record

ArticleVeterinary microbiology2015

Effects of disinfection on the molecular detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus.

Andrew S Bowman, Jacqueline M Nolting, Sarah W Nelson, Nola Bliss, Jason W Stull, Qiuhong Wang, Christopher Premanandan

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrew S BowmanDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Electronic address: bowman.214@osu.edu.
Jacqueline M NoltingDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Sarah W NelsonDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Nola BlissDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Jason W StullDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Qiuhong WangDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, The Ohio State University, 1920 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; Food Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Ave, Wooster, OH 44691, USA.
Christopher PremanandanDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, The Ohio State University, 1925 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH, USA.
The Ohio State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Routine detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) is currently limited to RT-PCR but this test cannot distinguish between viable and inactivated virus. We evaluated the capability of disinfectants to both inactivate PEDV and sufficiently damage viral RNA beyond RT-PCR detection. Five classes of disinfectants (phenol, quaternary ammonium compound, sodium hypochlorite, oxidizing agent, and quaternary ammonium/glutaraldehyde combination) were evaluated in vitro at varying concentrations, both in the presence and absence of swine feces, and at three different temperatures. No infectious PEDV was recovered after treatment with evaluated disinfectants. Additionally, all tested disinfectants except for 0.17% sodium hypochlorite dramatically reduced qRT-PCR values. However, no disinfectants eliminated RT-PCR detection of PEDV across all replicates; although, 0.52%, 1.03% and 2.06% solutions of sodium hypochlorite and 0.5% oxidizing agent did intermittently produce RT-PCR negatives. To simulate field conditions in a second aim, PEDV was applied to pitted aluminum coupons, which were then treated with either 2.06% sodium hypochlorite or 0.5% oxidizing agent. Post-treatment surface swabs of the coupons tested RT-PCR positive but were not infectious to cultured cells or naïve pigs. Ultimately, viable PEDV was not detected following application of each of the tested disinfectants, however in most cases RT-PCR detection of viral RNA remained. RT-PCR detection of PEDV is likely even after disinfection with many commercially available disinfectants.

Indexed as

AnimalsDisinfectantsDisinfectionFecesGastroenteritis, Transmissible, of SwineGlutaralOxidantsPhenolsPorcine epidemic diarrhea virusQuaternary Ammonium CompoundsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA CleavageRNA, ViralSodium HypochloriteSwineVirus InactivationDisinfectantsGlutaralOxidantsPhenolsQuaternary Ammonium CompoundsRNA, ViralSodium HypochloriteBiosecurityBleachInfection controlPorcine epidemic diarrhea virusReverse transcriptase polymerase chain reactionSodium hypochloriteSwineVirus inactivation

Identifiers

PMID26072369
PMCPMC7127254
OpenAlexW2214707950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.