Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38443949›Full record

ArticleActa veterinaria Scandinavica2024

Detection of selected pathogens in reproductive tissues of wild boars in the Campania region, southern Italy.

Gianmarco Ferrara, Nadia Piscopo, Ugo Pagnini, Luigi Esposito, Serena Montagnaro

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Seroprevalence of 16Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Genomic epidemiology ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gianmarco FerraraDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, University of Naples ''Federico II'', Via Delpino no. 1, 80137, Naples, Italy.
Nadia PiscopoDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, University of Naples ''Federico II'', Via Delpino no. 1, 80137, Naples, Italy. nadia.piscopo@unina.it.
Ugo PagniniDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, University of Naples ''Federico II'', Via Delpino no. 1, 80137, Naples, Italy.
Luigi EspositoDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, University of Naples ''Federico II'', Via Delpino no. 1, 80137, Naples, Italy.
Serena MontagnaroDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Productions, University of Naples ''Federico II'', Via Delpino no. 1, 80137, Naples, Italy.
University of Naples Federico II · ITFederico II University Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring disease among wildlife is critical to preserving health in both domestic animals and wildlife, and it becomes much more critical when the diseases cause significant economic damage to the livestock industry or threaten public health. Given the continuous increase in populations and its role as a reservoir for several infections, wild boar (Sus scrofa) requires special attention regarding disease surveillance and monitoring. In this study, we investigated the molecular prevalence of selected pathogens in the wild boar population of Campania, southern Italy. The prevalence of pathogens causing reproductive problems in pigs (Sus domesticus), including porcine parvovirus (PPV), porcine circovirus types 2 and 3 (PCV-2 and PCV-3), pseudorabies virus (PRV), Coxiella burnetii, and Brucella suis, was evaluated by testing the reproductive organs collected from 63 wild boars with polymerase chain reaction. The most common pathogens were PPV (44.4%) and two porcine circoviruses (14.3%). PRV and C. burnetii, on the other hand, showed a significantly lower prevalence (1.6%). No reproductive organs tested were positive for B. suis. Risk factor analysis revealed a correlation between age and PCV-2 positivity, with animals less than 12 months old having significantly higher prevalence rates.Our findings suggest that wild boars hunted in the Campania region harbour several infections potentially transmissible to other mammals' reproductive tracts. Furthermore, our results emphasized the importance of strict adherence to biosecurity protocols on domestic swine farms, especially on free-range farms, to avoid interactions between domestic and wild animals.

Indexed as

Animals, DomesticBrucella suisAnimalsAnimals, WildItalySus scrofaSwineBrucellaCoxiellaMolecular detectionPorcine circovirusPorcine parvovirusPseudorabiesReservoirWild boar

Identifiers

PMID38443949
PMCPMC10916309
OpenAlexW4392456482

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.