ArticleJournal of veterinary science2024
Implementation of point-of-care platforms for rapid detection of porcine circovirus type 2.
Article in Journal of veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Field Evaluation of a Ready-to-Use Porcine Circovirus Type 2 andVeterinary sciences · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPorcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) infection is ubiquitous around the world. Diagnosis of the porcine circovirus-associated disease requires clinic-pathological elements together with the quantification of viral loads. Furthermore, given pig farms in regions lacking access to sufficient laboratory equipment, developing diagnostic devices with high accuracy, accessibility, and affordability is a necessity.
objectivesThis study aims to investigate two newly developed diagnostic tools that may satisfy these criteria.
methodsWe collected 250 specimens, including 170 PCV2-positive and 80 PCV2-negative samples. The standard diagnosis and cycle threshold (Ct) values were determined by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Then, two point-of-care (POC) diagnostic platforms, convective polymerase chain reaction (cPCR, qualitative assay: positive or negative results are shown) and EZtargex (quantitative assay: Ct values are shown), were examined and analyzed.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of cPCR were 88.23% and 100%, respectively; the sensitivity and specificity of EZtargex were 87.65% and 100%, respectively. These assays also showed excellent concordance compared with the qPCR assay (κ = 0.828 for cPCR and κ = 0.820 for EZtargex). The statistical analysis showed a great diagnostic power of the EZtargex assay to discriminate between samples with different levels of positivity.
conclusionsThe two point-of-care diagnostic platforms are accurate, rapid, convenient and require little training for PCV2 diagnosis. These POC platforms can discriminate viral loads to predict the clinical status of the animals. The current study provided evidence that these diagnostics were applicable with high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of PCV2 infection in the field.
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.