ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023
Establishment of a
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insights into pig resilience: the Microbiome-genetic connection.Porcine health management · 2026Review
- Advancing standardization of diagnostics and antimicrobial susceptibility testing for pathogenic mycoplasmas of livestock origin: insights from the MyMIC network.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Cross-sectional study of Mycoplasma hyopharyngis, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Mycoplasma hyorhinis and Mycoplasma hyosynoviae in the tonsils of fattening pigs from Central-Eastern Europe.Porcine health management · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of Mycoplasma hyosynoviae strains isolated from five European countries between 2018 and 2023.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Isolation and identification ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methods: Five-week-old, Choice hybrid pigs were inoculated on 2 consecutive days by intravenous route (Group IV-IV) or by intravenous and intraperitoneal routes (Group IV-IP). Mock-infected animals were used as control (control group). After the challenge, the clinical signs were recorded for 28 days, after which the animals were euthanized. Gross pathological and histopathological examinations, PCR detection, isolation, and genotyping of the re-isolated Results: Pericarditis and polyarthritis were observed in both challenge groups; however, the serositis was more severe in Group IV-IV. Statistically significant differences were detected between the challenged groups and the control group regarding the average daily weight gain, pathological scores, and ELISA titers. Additionally, histopathological scores in Group IV-IV differed significantly from the scores in the control group. All re-isolated strains were the same or a close genetic variant of the original challenge strain. Discussion: Our results indicate that both challenge routes are suitable for modeling the disease. However, due to the evoked more severe pathological lesions and the application being similar to the hypothesized natural route of infection in Group IV-IV, the two-dose intravenous challenge is recommended by the authors to induce serositis and arthritis associated with
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.