ArticlePorcine health management2019
Vaccination against
Article in Porcine health management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Cross-sectional survey of risk factors for edema disease Escherichia coli (EDEC) on commercial pig farms in Germany.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Enteritis necroticans and Clostridium perfringens type C; Epidemiological and pathological findings over the past 20 years.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Review
- Clinical and Microbiological Features of Fulminant Haemolysis Caused byMicroorganisms · 2023Review
- Massive intravascular hemolysis is an important factor in Clostridium perfringens-induced bacteremia.Internal and emergency medicine · 2022Article
- A Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of Pre-Harvest Meat Safety Interventions in Pig Herds to ControlMicroorganisms · 2021Review
- Pathogenic Characterization ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2020Review
- Porcine Colostrum Protects the IPEC-J2 Cells and Piglet Colon Epithelium againstMicroorganisms · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
resultsIn two field trials using commercially available vaccines we monitored neutralizing anti-CPB antibodies in pigs after vaccination. The first trial compared antibody titers in primiparous (gilts) and multiparous sows and their piglets after vaccination. A proportion of gilts and their piglets' showed no or low antibody titers. All multiparous sows developed significantly higher serum and colostrum antibody titers after a booster vaccination shortly before their next farrowing. These colostral antibody titer highly correlated with the serum antibody titer of their piglets after consumption of colostrum. In a second field trial, we adapted the vaccination schemes using 3 instead of 2 initial vaccinations before the first farrowing of gilts. This significantly increased serum and colostrum antibody titers in gilts and serum antibody titers in piglets.
conclusionWe demonstrate that despite following recommended vaccination protocols, a proportion of gilts might not sufficiently seroconvert to provide efficient passive immunity to their offsprings. A simple adaptation of the vaccination scheme can however improve passive protection of piglets from NE.
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.