ArticlePorcine health management2024
Influenza surveillance in pigs: balancing act between broad diagnostic coverage and specific virus characterization.
Article in Porcine health management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mechanistic Models of Influenza Transmission in Commercial Swine Populations: A Systematic Review.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Pooled it
- Detecting swine influenza A virus during fattening and at slaughter: implications for monitoring strategies in fattening herds.Porcine health management · 2026Article
- Litter-Level Agreement of RT-qPCR Results for Influenza A Virus Between Oropharyngeal Swab, Udder Wipe, and Nasal Wipe Samples Collected in Chilean Swine Breeding Herds.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Genetic diversity and circulation of influenza A viruses in Italian pig farms: insights from surveillance and vaccination.Porcine health management · 2026Article
- Dairy Sites with Milk Exposure Are Most Likely to Have Detection of Influenza A Virus.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Influenza A virus infection dynamics in two sow herds and effects of interventions.Porcine health management · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of ELISA kits and expanded antigen panels for hemagglutination inhibition assays in pig herds enzootically infected with porcine Influenza A viruses.Porcine health management · 2025Article
- Dairy Environments with Milk Exposure are Most Likely to Have Detection of Influenza A Virus.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Emerging threats of HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b in swine: knowledge gaps and the imperative for a One Health approach.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Effect of stabilizers on the detection of swine influenza A virus (swIAV) in spiked oral fluids over time.Porcine health management · 2024Article
- Influenza A virus shedding and reinfection during the post-weaning period in swine: longitudinal study of two nurseries.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMonitoring of infectious diseases on swine farms requires a high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the test system. Moreover, particularly in cases of swine influenza A virus (swIAV) it is desirable to include characterization of the virus as precisely as possible. This is indispensable for strategies concerning prophylaxis of swIAV and furthermore, to meet the requirements of a purposeful monitoring of newly emerging swIAV strains in terms of vaccine design and public health. Within the present cross-sectional study, we compared the diagnostic value of group samples (wipes of surfaces with direct contact to mouth/nose, dust wipes, udder skin wipes, oral fluids) to individual samples (nasal swabs, tracheobronchial swabs) for both swIAV identification and characterization. Sampling included different stages of pig production on 25 sow farms with attached nursery considered as enzootically infected with swIAV. Firstly, samples were analyzed for IAV genome and subsequently samples with Ct-values < 32 were subtyped by multiplex RT-qPCR.
resultsNasal swabs of suckling piglets and nursery pigs resulted in a higher odds to detect swIAV (p < 0.001) and to identify swIAV subtypes by RT-qPCR (p < 0.05) compared to nasal swabs of sows. In suckling piglets, significant higher rates of swIAV detection could be observed for nasal swabs (p = 0.007) and sow udder skin wipes (p = 0.036) compared to contact wipes. In the nursery, group sampling specimens were significantly more often swIAV positive compared to individual samples (p < 0.01), with exception of the comparison between contact wipes and nasal swabs (p = 0.181). However, in general nasal swabs were more likely to have Ct-value < 32 and thus, to be suitable for subtyping by RT-qPCR compared to dust wipes, contact wipes, udder skin wipes and tracheobronchial swabs (p < 0.05). Interestingly, different subtypes were found in different age groups as well as in different specimens in the same holding.
conclusionAlthough population-based specimens are highly effective for swIAV monitoring, nasal swabs are still the preferable sampling material for the surveillance of on-farm circulating strains due to significantly higher virus loads. Remarkably, sampling strategies should incorporate suckling piglets and different age groups within the nursery to cover as many as possible of the on-farm circulating strains.
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.