Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31310643›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Assessing the value of PCR assays in oral fluid samples for detecting African swine fever, classical swine fever, and foot-and-mouth disease in U.S. swine.

Oriana Beemer, Marta Remmenga, Lori Gustafson, Kamina Johnson, David Hsi, Maria Celia Antognoli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Oriana BeemerSurveillance Design and Analysis Unit, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Veterinary Services, Strategy and Policy, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5792-3189
Marta RemmengaSurveillance Design and Analysis Unit, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Veterinary Services, Strategy and Policy, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Lori GustafsonSurveillance Design and Analysis Unit, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Veterinary Services, Strategy and Policy, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Kamina JohnsonSurveillance Design and Analysis Unit, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Veterinary Services, Strategy and Policy, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
David HsiSurveillance Design and Analysis Unit, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Veterinary Services, Strategy and Policy, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Maria Celia AntognoliSurveillance Design and Analysis Unit, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Veterinary Services, Strategy and Policy, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOral fluid sampling and testing offers a convenient, unobtrusive mechanism for evaluating the health status of swine, especially grower and finisher swine. This assessment evaluates the potential testing of oral fluid samples with real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) to detect African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease for surveillance during a disease outbreak and early detection in a disease-free setting.

methodsWe used a series of logical arguments, informed assumptions, and a range of parameter values from literature and industry practices to examine the cost and value of information provided by oral fluid sampling and rRT-PCR testing for the swine foreign animal disease surveillance objectives outlined above.

resultsBased on the evaluation, oral fluid testing demonstrated value for both settings evaluated. The greatest value was in an outbreak scenario, where using oral fluids would minimize disruption of animal and farm activities, reduce sample sizes by 23%-40%, and decrease resource requirements relative to current individual animal sampling plans. For an early detection system, sampling every 3 days met the designed prevalence detection threshold with 0.95 probability, but was quite costly. LIMITATIONS: Implementation of oral fluid testing for African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease surveillance is not yet possible due to several limitations and information gaps. The gaps include validation of PCR diagnostic protocols and kits for African swine fever, classical swine fever, or foot-and-mouth disease on swine oral fluid samples; minimal information on test performance in a field setting; detection windows with low virulence strains of some foreign animal disease viruses; and the need for confirmatory testing protocol development.

Indexed as

African Swine FeverAnimalsAsfarviridaeClassical Swine FeverClassical Swine Fever VirusFoot-and-Mouth DiseaseFoot-and-Mouth Disease VirusMouth MucosaPrevalenceProbabilityReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSalivaSensitivity and SpecificityRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID31310643
PMCPMC6634402
OpenAlexW2958596391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.