ArticleThe Journal of veterinary medical science2016
Evaluation of two commercial PRRSV antibody ELISA kits with samples of known status and singleton reactors.
Article in The Journal of veterinary medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances and emerging technologies in the diagnosis of viral infections in pigs: Progress, challenges, and One Health perspectives.Veterinary world · 2025Review
- Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome developments: An in-depth review of recent findings.Open veterinary journal · 2024Review
- Comparison of the pathogenicity of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV)-1 and PRRSV-2 in pregnant sows.Archives of virology · 2022Article
- Antibody responses to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, influenza A virus, and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae from weaning to the end of the finisher stage in fourteen groups of pigs in Ontario, Canada.BMC veterinary research · 2021Article
- Article
- Ability of ELISAs to detect antibodies against porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virus in serum of pigs after inactivated vaccination and subsequent challenge.BMC veterinary research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two commercial PRRSV ELISA kits (IDEXX and Bionote) were evaluated for their sensitivity and specificity using 476 PRRS-positive serum samples collected from 7 animal challenge experiments and 1,000 PRRS-negative sera. Both ELISA kits exhibited 100% sensitivity with sera collected 14 to 42 days post-infection, and the results from the kits were highly correlated (R(2)=0.9207). The specificity of IDEXX or Bionote kit was 99.9% or 99.7%, respectively. In addition, the Bionote ELISA kit was used to examine 100 sera that were determined to be falsely positive either by IDEXX 2XR or 3XR ELISA, and only 7 of these samples were found to be positive. These results indicate that both ELISA kits exhibited similar levels of sensitivity and specificity and would complement one another for the verification of false-positive samples.
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.