ArticlePreventive veterinary medicine2016
Diagnostic evaluation of assays for detection of antibodies against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) in pigs exposed to different PEDV strains.
Article in Preventive veterinary medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanism by which porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus disrupts host innate immunity.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Serum IgA antibody level against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus is a potential pre-evaluation indicator of immunization effects in sows during parturition under field conditions.Porcine health management · 2024Article
- In vitro suppression of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus by Panax notoginseng saponins: assessing antiviral potential.Archives of virology · 2024Article
- Correlation between the IgG/IgA Antibody Response against PEDV Structural Protein and Virus Neutralization.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Article
- Development of an indirect ELISA to detect PEDV specific IgA antibody based on a PEDV epidemic strain.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- Porcine Enteric Coronavirus Infections in Wild Boar in Poland - a Pilot Study.Journal of veterinary research · 2021Article
- Development of indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus specific antibodies (IgG) in serum of naturally infected pigs.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
- A novel biotinylated nanobody-based blocking ELISA for the rapid and sensitive clinical detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2019Article
- The emergence of porcine epidemic diarrhoea in Croatia: molecular characterization and serology.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
- No evidence of PEDV infection in French artificial insemination centers in 2015.Porcine health management · 2019Article
- Development and validation of a monoclonal antibody-based competitive ELISA for detection of antibodies against porcine epidemic diarrhoea virus (PEDV).Research in veterinary science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) has caused economic losses in the Americas, Asia and Europe in recent years. Reliable serological assays are essential for epidemiological studies and vaccine evaluation. The objective of this study was to compare the ability of five enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) to detect antibodies against different PEDV strains in pig serum. A total of 732 serum samples from North American or European pigs were tested. Samples included experimental samples from pigs infected with classical (G1a PEDV) or variant genogroup 1 PEDV (G1b PEDV), pandemic genogroup 2 PEDV (G2b PEDV) or non-infected controls. Field samples from herds with confirmed or unknown PEDV exposure were also used. Three indirect ELISAs based on G2b antigens (ELISAs 1, 2 and 3), a competitive ELISA based on the G2b antigen (ELISA 4) and a competitive ELISA based on the G1a antigen (ELISA 5) were compared. Overall, the tests had a moderate agreement (κ=0.61). G1a PEDV infected pigs were earliest detected by ELISA 3, G1b PEDV infected pigs were earliest detected by ELISAs 4 and 5 and the performance of all tests was similar for the G2b PEDV group. ELISA 1 showed the overall lowest detection on experimentally and field derived samples. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with a 95% probability interval were estimated to be 68.2% (62.1-74.4%) and 97.5% (95.2-99.0%) for ELISA 1, 73.7% (71.5-79.6%) and 98.4% (96.6-99.5%) for ELISA 2, 86.2% (81.1-90.6%) and 91.6% (87.7-94.8%) for ELISA 3, 78.3% (72.8-83.5%) and 99.7% (98.2-100%) for ELISA 4, and 93.5% (90.3-96.0%) and 91.2% (83.8-97.9%) for ELISA 5. Differences in detection among assays seem to be more related to intrinsic factors of an assay than to the PEDV antigen used.
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.