Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36838465›Full record

ArticleMicroorganisms2023

Evaluation of Non-Invasive Sampling Methods for Detection of Hepatitis E Virus Infected Pigs in Pens.

Marina Meester, Aniek Rademaker, Martijn Bouwknegt, Renate W Hakze-van der Honing, Arjan Stegeman, Wim H M van der Poel, Tijs J Tobias

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microorganisms, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marina MeesterFarm Animal Health Unit, Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8004-8546
Aniek RademakerFarm Animal Health Unit, Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Martijn BouwknegtVion Food Group, 5281 RM Boxtel, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3446-5338
Renate W Hakze-van der HoningWageningen Bioveterinary Research, 8221 RA Lelystad, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7621-2729
Arjan StegemanFarm Animal Health Unit, Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4361-3846
Wim H M van der PoelWageningen Bioveterinary Research, 8221 RA Lelystad, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7498-8002
Tijs J TobiasFarm Animal Health Unit, Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0747-9531
Utrecht University · NLWageningen University & Research · NLVion Food Group (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme 773830Topsector AgriFood TKI AF 18119
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pigs are a reservoir of hepatitis E virus (HEV), which causes hepatitis in humans. To study the epidemiology of HEV in pig farms, sampling methods are currently used that cause discomfort to pigs, such as rectal sampling. In line with the 3Rs principle, we aimed to evaluate non-invasive methods to detect pens with HEV-shedding pigs. Twenty-eight pens of one farm were sampled cross-sectionally. Individual rectal swabs (IRS) were collected to determine prevalence within pens. Four pen-level samples were compared: a pool of IRS per pen (P), boot socks (BS), oral fluid (OF) and pooled faecal droppings (FD). Each sample was tested by RT-PCR and the sensitivity and specificity of each method was determined by Bayesian latent class analysis. According to IRS, 19/28 pens were HEV positive. BS had a sensitivity of 95% and detected HEV in pens with 10% of pigs shedding; however, specificity was below 30%. FD were comparably accurate to P, with a sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 86%, respectively. BS sampling is thus advised to detect early shedding of HEV or pen contamination, and FD to determine the duration of shedding. This study demonstrates that non-invasive sampling can replace rectal swabs in research on HEV in pigs.

Indexed as

animal experimentsboot sockHEVoral fluidpig farmspooled faecal droppingsrefinementsensitivityspecificitythree Rs

Identifiers

PMID36838465
PMCPMC9962119
OpenAlexW4321162491

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.