Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32460762›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2020

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.

Jan Plut, Urska Jamnikar-Ciglenecki, Marina Stukelj

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2020. 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
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Oral fluids for detection and characterization ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jan PlutClinic for Ruminants and Pigs, Clinic for Reproduction and Farm Animals, Veterinary Faculty University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. jan.plut@vf.uni-lj.si.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3456-7438
Urska Jamnikar-CigleneckiInstitute of Food Safety, Feed and Environment, Veterinary Faculty University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Marina StukeljClinic for Ruminants and Pigs, Clinic for Reproduction and Farm Animals, Veterinary Faculty University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPorcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV), Porcine Circovirus Type 2 (PCV2) and Hepatitis E virus (HEV) are common and economically important viral disease causative agents detected in pig oral fluid (OF), faeces and serum at some infection stages. The purpose of this study was to detect PRRSV, PCV2 and HEV on six pig farms to determine which of the three sample types, OF, faeces or serum is appropriate for the diagnosis of these viruses in different pig categories. The following pig categories were included: 5 weeks-old (w/o), 7 w/o, 9 w/o, 11 w/o weaners, fatteners and breeding sows. Pursuant to the preliminary detection of each pathogen at the selected farms, OF samples, faeces, serum pools and 10 individual sera were examined, using PCR, for each age category. If any of the viruses were found in pools of faeces and OF, then faeces and OF from positive farms were tested separately for each pig category. The viral nucleic acids were detected using RT-PCR, PCR and real-time RT-PCR, for PRRSV, PCV2 and HEV respectively.

resultsPRRSV and HEV were detected on one farm and PCV2 on three others, positive results being more often obtained from the OF than from the faeces of the same animals. Ten individual serum samples from pigs from the same group of animals were also tested. The viruses were detected in almost all individual sera and OF in the same pig category with some exceptions: PRRSV was detected in the OF of fatteners but was absent in their sera; on Farm 2, PCV2 was detected in sera of 11 w/o pigs and fatteners but absent in group samples of their OF and, vice versa, in case of 9 w/o animals; HEV was detected in the OF of the youngest, 5 w/o weaners and absent in sera of the same age group.

conclusionsThe primary finding of the study is that OF is a welfare-friendly, non-invasive and highly efficient matrix for pathogen detection, thus evidencing the usefulness of pig OF as a matrix in which each of the three viruses considered can be detected with the highest probability.

Indexed as

AnimalsCircoviridae InfectionsCircovirusDNA, ViralFecesFemaleHepatitis E virusHepatitis, Viral, AnimalPolymerase Chain ReactionPorcine Reproductive and Respiratory SyndromePorcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome virusRNA, ViralSalivaSwineSwine DiseasesDNA, ViralRNA, ViralFaecesHepatitis E virusPCV2Pig oral fluidPRRSSerum

Identifiers

PMID32460762
PMCPMC7251745
OpenAlexW3031185412

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.