ArticleJournal of animal science2016
Production impact of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection on fattening pigs in Norway.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mechanistic Models of Influenza Transmission in Commercial Swine Populations: A Systematic Review.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Pooled it
- Detecting swine influenza A virus during fattening and at slaughter: implications for monitoring strategies in fattening herds.Porcine health management · 2026Article
- Influenza A virus infection dynamics in two sow herds and effects of interventions.Porcine health management · 2026Article
- Immunogenicity and Protective Efficacy of Dose-Sparing Epigraph Vaccine against H3 Swine Influenza A Virus.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Utilizing productivity and health breeding-to-market information along with disease diagnostic data to identify pig mortality risk factors in a U.S. swine production system.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Farm management practices, biosecurity and influenza a virus detection in swine farms: a comprehensive study in colombia.Porcine health management · 2022Article
- A New Sampling Approach for the Detection of Swine Influenza a Virus on European Sow Farms.Veterinary sciences · 2022Article
- Longitudinal Projection of Herd Prevalence of Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 Virus Infection in the Norwegian Pig Population by Discrete-Time Markov Chain Modelling.Infectious disease reports · 2021Article
- The epidemiology of swine influenza.Animal diseases · 2021Review
- Effect of strain-specific maternally-derived antibodies on influenza A virus infection dynamics in nursery pigs.PloS one · 2019Article
- A new comprehensive method for detection of livestock-related pathogenic viruses using a target enrichment system.Biochemical and biophysical research communications · 2018Article
- Influenza Herd-Level Prevalence and Seasonality in Breed-to-Wean Pig Farms in the Midwestern United States.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2017Article
- Rapid control of pandemic H1N1 influenza by targeting NKT-cells.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Occurrence and spread of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection in Norwegian pig herds based on active serosurveillance from 2010 to 2014.Epidemiology and infection · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Newly emerged influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection in Norwegian pigs, although often observed in a subclinical form, can lower the pig's growth performance by reducing feed efficiency in terms of a poorer feed conversion ratio. Infected pigs would consume more feed and require protracted production time to reach market weight. In our observational longitudinal study, growth performance data from 728 control pigs and 193 infected pigs with known viral shedding time points were analyzed using mixed linear regression models to give estimates of the marginal effects of infection. Gaussian curves describing the variability of the estimates at the individual pig level formed the fundamental inputs to our stochastic models. The models were constructed to simulate the summed negative effects of the infection at the batch level of 150 fattening pigs growing from 33 to 100 kg. Other inputs of variability and uncertainty were 1) batch transmission points, 2) pig infection points to reflect the disease transmission dynamics of the virus, and 3) final prevalence of infected pigs in the batch. Monte Carlo random sampling gave 5,000 estimates on the outputs of the marginal effects for each pig. These results were summed up to provide estimates for a batch size of 150 pigs. This figure was adjusted by our final prevalence distribution function, which was also derived from the longitudinal study with 12 cohorts of infected pigs. For a 150-fattening-pig herd randomly selected from the population, the marginal effects of the infection were 1) 835 kg (fifth percentile) to 1,350 kg (95th percentile) increased feed intake and 2) 194 (fifth percentile) to 334 (95th percentile) pig days in excess of expected figures for an uninfected batch. A batch infected during growth phase 3 (81 to 100 kg BW) gave the worst results since the longitudinal study showed that a pig infected during growth phase 3 required more feed and a greater protracted production time compared to younger infected pigs. Sensitivity analysis showed that final prevalence had the greatest impact on the conditional mean and variation of the marginal effects of infections. Batch transmission point was the next most influential factor. Lowering the final prevalence and preventing older fattening pigs from being infected will have the greatest benefit in saving feed cost and reducing delay in getting the pigs to the market.
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.