ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2017
Using oral fluids samples for indirect influenza A virus surveillance in farmed UK pigs.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Swine influenza A virus infection dynamics and evolution in intensive pig production systems.Virus evolution · 2024Article
- The epidemiology of swine influenza.Animal diseases · 2021Review
- Noninvasive strategies for surveillance of swine viral diseases: a review.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2020Review
- A Systematic Review Analyzing the Prevalence and Circulation of Influenza Viruses in Swine Population Worldwide.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Influenza A virus (IAV) is economically important in pig production and has broad public health implications. In Europe, active IAV surveillance includes demonstration of antigen in nasal swabs and/or demonstration of antibodies in serum (SER) samples; however, collecting appropriate numbers of individual pig samples can be costly and labour-intensive. The objective of this study was to compare the probability of detecting IAV antibody positive populations using SER versus oral fluid (OF) samples. Paired pen samples, one OF and 5-14 SER samples, were collected cross-sectional or longitudinally. A commercial nucleoprotein (NP)-based blocking ELISA was used to test 244 OF and 1004 SER samples from 123 pens each containing 20-540 pigs located in 27 UK herds. Overall, the IAV antibody detection rate was higher in SER samples compared to OFs under the study conditions. Pig age had a significant effect on the probability of detecting positive pens. For 3-9-week-old pigs the probability of detecting IAV antibody positive samples in a pen with 95% confidence intervals was 40% (23-60) for OF and 61% (0.37-0.80) for SER (
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.