Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33233870›Full record

ArticleViruses2020

Diagnostic Performances of Different Genome Amplification Assays for the Detection of Swine Vesicular Disease Virus in Relation to Genomic Lineages That Circulated in Italy.

Giulia Pezzoni, Dennis Benedetti, Arianna Bregoli, Ilaria Barbieri, Efrem Alessandro Foglia, Santina Grazioli, Emiliana Brocchi

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Validation of a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to improve the serological diagnosis of swine vesicular disease.Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Giulia PezzoniNational/OIE/FAO Reference Centre for Foot-and-Mouth Disease and for Swine Vesicular Disease, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), via Bianchi 9, 24125 Brescia, Italy.
Dennis BenedettiNational/OIE/FAO Reference Centre for Foot-and-Mouth Disease and for Swine Vesicular Disease, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), via Bianchi 9, 24125 Brescia, Italy.
Arianna BregoliNational/OIE/FAO Reference Centre for Foot-and-Mouth Disease and for Swine Vesicular Disease, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), via Bianchi 9, 24125 Brescia, Italy.
Ilaria BarbieriNational/OIE/FAO Reference Centre for Foot-and-Mouth Disease and for Swine Vesicular Disease, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), via Bianchi 9, 24125 Brescia, Italy.
Efrem Alessandro FogliaNational/OIE/FAO Reference Centre for Foot-and-Mouth Disease and for Swine Vesicular Disease, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), via Bianchi 9, 24125 Brescia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7446-8365
Santina GrazioliNational/OIE/FAO Reference Centre for Foot-and-Mouth Disease and for Swine Vesicular Disease, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), via Bianchi 9, 24125 Brescia, Italy.
Emiliana BrocchiNational/OIE/FAO Reference Centre for Foot-and-Mouth Disease and for Swine Vesicular Disease, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna (IZSLER), via Bianchi 9, 24125 Brescia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1864-080X
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e dell'Emilia Romagna "Bruno Ubertini" · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the last 25 years, swine vesicular disease (SVD) has occurred in Italy mostly sub-clinically. Therefore, regular testing of fecal samples from suspected holdings and high turnover premises was fundamental to identifying virus circulation and to achieve SVD eradication. In this study, we evaluated diagnostic performances of six genomic amplification methods, using positive fecal samples from 78 different outbreaks (1997-2014), which included different lineages. Comparison of three RT-PCRs, designed to amplify the same 154 nt portion of the gene 3D, demonstrated that a conventional and a real-time based on SYBR Green detection assay showed the highest diagnostic sensitivity, detecting all samples, while a real-time TaqMan-based test missed three cases, owing to two mismatches in the probe target sequence. Diagnostic and analytical specificities were optimal, as 300 negative field samples and other enteroviruses reacted negative. Three further evaluated tests, previously described, were a 3D-targeted reverse transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) and two real-time RT-PCRs targeted on the 5'UTR region. Here, the presence of multiple mismatches in probe and primers reduced the diagnostic performances, and two of the assays were unable to detect viruses from one sub-lineage. These results highlight that the choice of tests using less nucleotide targets significantly contributed to the success of the SVD eradication plan.

Indexed as

Genome, ViralAnimalsDNA PrimersEnterovirus B, HumanFecesItalyMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPhylogenyReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificitySwineSwine DiseasesDNA PrimersRNA, Viralfield fecal samplesgenome amplification assaysgenomic lineagesSVDV

Identifiers

PMID33233870
PMCPMC7699968
OpenAlexW3106286802

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.