Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30764815›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

Comparison of individual, group and environmental sampling strategies to conduct influenza surveillance in pigs.

Jorge Garrido-Mantilla, Julio Alvarez, Marie Culhane, Jayaveeramuthu Nirmala, Jean Paul Cano, Montserrat Torremorell

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jorge Garrido-MantillaVeterinary Population Medicine Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Julio AlvarezVeterinary Population Medicine Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Marie CulhaneVeterinary Population Medicine Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Jayaveeramuthu NirmalaVeterinary Population Medicine Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Jean Paul CanoPIC, Hendersonville, TN, USA.
Montserrat TorremorellVeterinary Population Medicine Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA. torr0033@umn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9626-6537
University of Minnesota · USUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfluenza A virus (IAV) is an important pathogen in pigs that affects productivity and has important public health implications because of its zoonotic nature. Surveillance is central to the control of influenza, however, detection of IAV infections can be challenging in endemically infected herds with low prevalence of infection.

methodsIn groups of suckling (18-21 days of age) and growing (35-45 days of age) pigs, we compared various sampling approaches to detect, isolate and sequence IAV using individual (nasal swabs, nasal wipes and oropharyngeal swabs), group (oral fluids, surface wipes and sow udder skin wipes) and environmental (airborne particles deposited on surfaces and air samples) sampling approaches. All samples were tested by IAV rRT-PCR and a subset was used for virus isolation and direct sequencing.

resultsIn general, environmental and group samples resulted in higher odd ratios (range = 3.87-16.5, p-value < 0.05) of detecting a positive sample by rRT-PCR compared to individual pooled samples, except for oropharyngeal swabs (OR = 8.07, p-value < 0.05). In contrast, individual samples were most likely to yield a viral isolate by cell culture. Oropharyngeal swabs in suckling pigs (78.4%), and nasal swabs (47.6%) or nasal wipes (45%) in growing pigs, and udder wipes in lactating sows (75%) were the preferred samples to obtain an isolate.

conclusionsOur findings indicate that group and environmental sampling strategies should be considered in influenza surveillance programs in particular if the goal is just to detect infection. This study provides new information on sampling approaches to conduct effective influenza surveillance in pigs and identifies udder wipes from lactating sows as a novel sample type that offers a convenient, cheap and sensitive manner to monitor IAV in litters prior to weaning.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, SucklingEnvironmental MicrobiologyInfluenza A virusOrthomyxoviridae InfectionsPopulation SurveillanceReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSampling StudiesSequence Analysis, DNASwineSwine DiseasesEnvironmentInfluenzaPigsSamplingSurveillanceUdder wipe

Identifiers

PMID30764815
PMCPMC6376652
OpenAlexW2942903411

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.