ArticleEpidemiology and infection2016
Chlamydia prevalence in Polish pig herds.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of Chlamydia suis on reproductive outcome in farms with and without tetracycline treatment of sows.Veterinary research · 2026Article
- Suspected Cases of Chlamydia-Induced Fertility Problems in Sows: What Is the Approach of Austrian Practitioners?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Establishment of a Multiplex Real-Time TaqMan-MGB Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Method for the Simultaneous Detection of Three Animal Chlamydia Species.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chlamydiae are frequently encountered intracellular Gram-negative bacteria. In pigs, these bacteria in combination with other pathogens contribute to the induction of a multi-aetiological syndrome. One of the major characteristics of Chlamydia spp. is their ability to cause prolonged, often subclinical infections. While the economic consequences of Chlamydia spp. infections in pig farms are not fully established, we know that reproductive disorders and other syndromes correlated with Chlamydia infection can lead to financial loss as a result of a reduction in pork production. Additionally, Chlamydia spp. presents a potential zoonotic hazard, therefore determining the prevalence of Chlamydia in pig populations is critical. In the present study 97 pig herds from Poland were involved. To determine the prevalence of Chlamydia PCR and CFT tests were used. In total 797 vaginal samples, 797 conjunctival samples, and 235 serum samples were collected and tested. The study took place from 2011 to 2014. We found Chlamydia spp. present in 71·2% of all tested farms. The percentage of animals testing positive on any given farm varied from 20% to 100%.
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.