ArticlePorcine health management2018
Comparison of serum pools and oral fluid samples for detection of porcine circovirus type 2 by quantitative real-time PCR in finisher pigs.
Article in Porcine health management, 2018. 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, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testicular processing fluid as a useful matrix for the detection of porcine circovirus type 2 DNA and virus-specific antibodies.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Animal Welfare-Friendly Noninvasive Oral Fluid in Swine Diagnostics: Current Applications in Disease Monitoring, Key Challenges and Future Directions.Veterinary medicine international · 2026Review
- Environmental and Serological Monitoring of Porcine Circovirus by Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification in Pig Farms.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Update on the Prevalence of the PCV2 Major Genotypes PCV2a, PCV2b, and PCV2d in German Fattening Farms in 2024.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Field study on the suitability of oral fluid samples for monitoring of Lawsonia intracellularis and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae by multiplex qPCR under field conditions.Porcine health management · 2025Article
- Associations between health, productive performance and oral fluid biomarkers in commercial pig farms.Porcine health management · 2024Article
- Article
- Revisiting Porcine Circovirus Infection: Recent Insights and Its Significance in the Piggery Sector.Vaccines · 2023Review
- Lesions and pathogens found in pigs that died during the nursery period in five Danish farms.Porcine health management · 2023Article
- Explorative Field Study on the Use of Oral Fluids for the Surveillance ofVeterinary sciences · 2022Article
- 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
- Molecular detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, porcine circovirus 2 and hepatitis E virus in oral fluid compared to their detection in faeces and serum.BMC veterinary research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPorcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) diagnostics in live pigs often involves pooled serum and/or oral fluid samples for group-level determination of viral load by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). The purpose of the study was to compare the PCV2 viral load determined by qPCR of paired samples at the pen level of pools of sera (SP) from 4 to 5 pigs and the collective oral fluid (OF) from around 30 pigs corresponding to one rope put in the same pen. Pigs in pens of 2 finishing herds were sampled by cross-sectional (Herd 1) and cross-sectional with follow-up (Herd 2) study designs. In Herd 1, 50 sample pairs consisting of SP from 4 to 5 pigs and OF from around 23 pigs were collected. In Herd 2, 65 sample pairs consisting of 4 (SP) and around 30 (OF) pigs were collected 4 times at 3-week intervals.
resultsA higher proportion of PCV2-positive pens (86% vs. 80% and 100% vs. 91%) and higher viral loads (mean difference: 2.10 and 1.83 log(10) PCV2 copies per ml) were found in OF versus SP in both herds. The OF cut-off value corresponding to a positive SP (>3 log(10) PCV2 copies per ml) was estimated to 6.5 and 7.36 log(10) PCV2 copies per ml for Herds 1 and 2, respectively. Significant correlations between SP and OF results were found in Herd 1 (rho = 0.69) and the first sampling in Herd 2 (rho = 0.39), but not for the subsequent consecutive 3 samplings in Herd 2.
conclusionsThe proportion and viral loads of PCV2 positive pens were higher in collective OF (including up to 30 pigs) compared to SP (including 4-5 pigs) of the same pens. Also, OF seemed to detect the PCV2 infection earlier with OF values just below 6.5 (Herd 1) and 7.36 (Herd 2) log(10) being associated with a negative SP for the same pen. Nevertheless, a statistically significant correlation between SP and OF could not be found for all sampling time points, probably due to a high within-pen variation in individual pig viral load becoming very evident in SP of only four or five pigs. Consequently, the results imply that OF is well suited for detecting presence of PCV2 but less so for determining the specific viral load of pigs in a pen.
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.