Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30148883›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Molecular assessment of visitor personal protective equipment contamination with the Aleutian mink disease virus and porcine circovirus-2 in mink and porcine farms.

José Manuel Díaz Cao, Alberto Prieto, Gonzalo López, Ricardo Fernández-Antonio, Pablo Díaz, Ceferino López, Susana Remesar, Pablo Díez-Baños, Gonzalo Fernández

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

José Manuel Díaz CaoDepartment of Animal Pathology (INVESAGA Group), Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8119-7057
Alberto PrietoDepartment of Animal Pathology (INVESAGA Group), Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.
Gonzalo LópezDepartment of Animal Pathology (INVESAGA Group), Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.
Ricardo Fernández-AntonioDepartment of Animal Pathology (INVESAGA Group), Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.
Pablo DíazDepartment of Animal Pathology (INVESAGA Group), Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.
Ceferino LópezDepartment of Animal Pathology (INVESAGA Group), Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9151-3180
Susana RemesarDepartment of Animal Pathology (INVESAGA Group), Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.
Pablo Díez-BañosDepartment of Animal Pathology (INVESAGA Group), Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.
Gonzalo FernándezDepartment of Animal Pathology (INVESAGA Group), Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an element of biosecurity intended to prevent the access or spread of diseases in farms. Nevertheless, to date no extensive reports exist about the effectiveness of different available PPE on farms. Thus, our aim was to estimate the degree of protection of PPE from viral contamination during farm visits. Two farms, infected with Aleutian mink disease virus and porcine circovirus-2 respectively, were visited by six visitors wearing different combinations of PPE: coveralls with hood and bootcovers, both with a certified barrier to infective agents (certified PPE group) and non-certified bootcover and coverall without hood (non-certified PPE group). Seventy-two swab samples from PPE and both hair and street clothes under PPE were taken after the visit and analysed by qPCR. Our results reveal viral exposure during visits, and the external protections of body and shoes were contaminated in all cases (24/24). In addition, protection from viral contamination varied noticeably according to the biosecurity elements used. A higher number of positives were detected in the non-certified PPE group than in the certified PPE group, both in elements under external protections (14/18 vs 3/18) and also in hair (4/6 vs 0/6). In fact, non-certified bootcovers broke during visits, resulting in viral contamination of the internal elements under them; these are consequently not suitable for using with wrinkled surfaces usually found in farm facilities. Thus, certified coveralls should be used in order to prevent contaminations, and workers and personnel of farms should be trained in their proper use. qPCR is a useful tool in the risk management of biosecurity programmes, and our results may serve as a model to evaluate different biosecurity measures.

Indexed as

Aleutian Mink Disease VirusAnimal HusbandryCircovirusFarmsAleutian Mink DiseaseAnimalsCircoviridae InfectionsHairHumansMinkPersonal Protective EquipmentShoesSwineSwine Diseases

Identifiers

PMID30148883
PMCPMC6110490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.