ArticleThe Journal of veterinary medical science2024
Novel approach for detecting classical swine fever virus from swabs of wild boar cut tails using nested real-time PCR.
Article in The Journal of veterinary medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global prevalence of classical swine fever in domestic pigs: an integrative systematic review and meta-analysis.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Pooled it
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We devised a method to detect the classical swine fever virus (CSFV) in tail-wiped swabs from wild boars. The CSFV gene in swabs was detected with high sensitivity using nested real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which is a combination of reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and real-time PCR. We compared CSFV gene detection from boar tissue using the conventional and our tail-wiped swab method. The tail-wiped swab method showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% (26/26) and 98.8% (172/174), respectively compared to the conventional method. Thus, the swab-based CSFV detection method was considered to have detection sensitivity comparable to that of conventional methods. Additionally, we conducted surveillance for CSFV in wild boars on Awaji Island. CSFV was detected in 10.7% (45/420) of samples.
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.