Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Alba Ortín-BustilloInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.
María BotíaInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0390-2953
Marina López-ArjonaDepartment of Animal and Food Science, School of Veterinary Science, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain.
Luis Pardo-MarínInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5398-1162
José J CerónInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.
Silvia Martínez-SubielaInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1524-1558
María José López-MartínezInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4159-037X
Asta TvarijonaviciuteInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5323-5001
Alberto Muñoz-PrietoInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6865-8712
Camila P RubioInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9293-4147
Silvia Martínez-MiróDepartment of Animal Production, Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1350-0886
Damián EscribanoInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9439-6779
Fernando TeclesInterdisciplinary Laboratory of Clinical Analysis of the University of Murcia (Interlab-UMU), Regional Campus of International Excellence 'Campus Mare Nostrum', University of Murcia, Campus de Espinardo s/n, 30100 Murcia, Spain.
Universidad de Murcia · ESUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES
Funding
Fundación Séneca - Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región de Murcia 21603/FPI/21Fundación Séneca - Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región de Murcia 21789/FPI/22Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación TED2021-130685B-I00Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Spain FJC2021-047105-IMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain FJC2019-042475-I
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
The use of saliva as a biological sample from pigs is of high practical interest because blood collection from pigs is difficult and stressful. In this study, the influence of two different materials, a cotton roll and a polypropylene sponge, in porcine saliva collection was evaluated. For this purpose, the effect of the material used for sampling was evaluated in a panel of 13 analytes, including those related to stress (cortisol and oxytocin), inflammation and immunity (adenosine deaminase, haptoglobin and myeloperoxidase), redox homeostasis (the cupric reducing ability of saliva, the ferric reducing activity of saliva, and the Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity), and sepsis (procalcitonin), as well as other routine analytes related to metabolism and different tissues and organs, such as lactate dehydrogenase, creatine kinase, urea, and total protein concentration. The polypropylene sponge provided a higher sample volume than the cotton roll. Although the results of some salivary analytes were equivalent for both materials, other analytes, such as creatine kinase, haptoglobin and total proteins, showed significant differences depending on the material used for saliva collection. Therefore, the type of material used for salivary collection in pigs should be considered when interpreting the results of analyses of the salivary analytes.
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.
Saliva Sampling Material Matters: Effects on the Results of Saliva Analysis in Pigs. · full record | OpenQuestion