Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32478107›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2020

Detection of Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus Subtype H10N7 in Poultry and Environmental Water Samples During a Clinical Outbreak in Commercial Free-Range Layers, Netherlands 2017.

Evelien A Germeraad, Armin R W Elbers, Naomi D de Bruijn, Rene Heutink, Wendy van Voorst, Renate Hakze-van der Honing, Saskia A Bergervoet, Marc Y Engelsma, Wim H M van der Poel, Nancy Beerens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Preparedness, prevention and control related to zoonotic avian influenza.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Evelien A GermeraadWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Department of Virology, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Armin R W ElbersWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Department of Bacteriology and Epidemiology, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Naomi D de BruijnPoultry Department, GD-Animal Health, Deventer, Netherlands.
Rene HeutinkWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Department of Virology, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Wendy van VoorstWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Department of Virology, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Renate Hakze-van der HoningWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Department of Virology, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Saskia A BergervoetWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Department of Virology, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Marc Y EngelsmaWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Department of Virology, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Wim H M van der PoelWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Department of Virology, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Nancy BeerensWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Department of Virology, Lelystad, Netherlands.
Wageningen University & Research · NLDe Gezondheidsdienst voor Dieren · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wild birds are the natural reservoir of the avian influenza virus (AIV) and may transmit AIV to poultry via direct contact or indirectly through the environment. In the Netherlands, a clinically suspected free-range layer flock was reported to the veterinary authorities by the farmer. Increased mortality, a decreased feed intake, and a drop in egg production were observed. Subsequently, an infection with low pathogenic avian influenza virus was detected. This study describes the diagnostic procedures used for detection and subtyping of the virus. In addition to routine diagnostics, the potential of two different environmental diagnostic methods was investigated for detecting AIV in surface water. AIV was first detected using rRT-PCR and isolated from tracheal and cloacal swabs collected from the hens. The virus was subtyped as H10N7. Antibodies against the virus were detected in 28 of the 31 sera tested. An intravenous pathogenicity index (IVPI) experiment was performed, but no clinical signs (IVPI = 0) were observed. Post-mortem examination and histology confirmed the AIV infection. Multiple water samples were collected longitudinally from the free-range area and waterway near the farm. Both environmental diagnostic methods allowed the detection of the H10N7 virus, demonstrating the potential of these methods in detection of AIV. The described methods could be a useful additional procedure for AIV surveillance in water-rich areas with large concentrations of wild birds or in areas around poultry farms. In addition, these methods could be used as a tool to test if the environment or free-range area is virus-free again, at the end of an AIV epidemic.

Indexed as

environmental samplingLPAIVoutbreakpoultrywater

Identifiers

PMID32478107
PMCPMC7232570
OpenAlexW3022623051

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.