ArticleViruses2024
Investigation of the Use of Environmental Samples for the Detection of EHV-1 in the Stalls of Subclinical Shedders.
Article in Viruses, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In populations of healthy show horses, the subclinical transmission and circulation of respiratory pathogens can lead to disease outbreaks. Due to recent outbreaks of equine herpesvirus-1 myeloencephalopathy (EHM) in the USA and Europe, many show organizers have instituted various biosecurity protocols such as individual horse testing, monitoring for early clinical disease and increasing hygiene and cleanliness protocols. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of detecting EHV-1 in the various environmental samples collected from the stalls of subclinical shedders. Four healthy adult horses were vaccinated intranasally with a modified-live EHV-1 vaccine in order to mimic subclinical shedding. Three additional horses served as non-vaccinated controls. All the horses were stabled in the same barn in individual stalls. Each vaccinated horse had nose-to-nose contact with at least one other horse. Prior to the vaccine administration, and daily thereafter for 10 days, various samples were collected, including a 6" rayon-tipped nasal swab, an environmental sponge, a cloth strip placed above the automatic waterer and an air sample. The various samples were processed for nucleic acid purification and analyzed for the presence of EHV-1 via quantitative PCR (qPCR). EHV-1 in nasal secretions was only detected in the vaccinated horses for 1-2 days post-vaccine administration. The environmental sponges tested EHV-1 qPCR-positive for 2-5 days (median 3.5 days) in the vaccinated horses and 1 day for a single control horse. EHV-1 was detected by qPCR in stall strips from three out of four vaccinated horses and from two out of three controls for only one day. EHV-1 qPCR-positive air samples were only detected in three out of four vaccinated horses for one single day. For the vaccinated horses, a total of 25% of the nasal swabs, 35% of the environmental stall sponges, 7.5% of the strips and 7.5% of the air samples tested qPCR positive for EHV-1 during the 10 study days. When monitoring the subclinical EHV-1 shedders, the collection and testing of the environmental sponges were able to detect EHV-1 in the environment with greater frequency as compared to nasal swabs, stationary strips and air 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.