ArticlePorcine health management2024
Oropharyngeal swab sampling for PRRSV detection in large-scale pig farms: a convenient and reliable method for mass sampling.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid Differential Detection of PRRSV NADC30-like and NADC34-like Strains Using a CRISPR-Cas13a/RT-RAA Assay.Applied biochemistry and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Integrated PRRSV prevention and control strategy based on the One Health concept: across the boundaries of virology, ecology and public health.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPorcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) has significant productivity and economic impacts in swine herds. Accurately determining the PRRSV status at the herd level is crucial for producers and veterinarians to implement strategies to control and eliminate the virus from infected herds. This study collected oropharyngeal swabs (OSs), nasal swabs (NSs), oral fluid swabs (OFs), rectal swabs (RSs), and serum samples continuously from PRRSV challenged pigs under experimental conditions and growing pigs under field conditions. Additionally, OSs and serum samples were collected from individual sows from 50 large-scale breeding farms, and the collection of OSs does not require the sows to be restrained. Ct values of PRRSV were detected in all samples using real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR).
resultsIn PRRSV challenged pigs, OSs showed a higher PRRSV-positive rate until the end of the observation period. The Ct values of OSs were significantly lower than those of NSs, OFs, and RSs at 2, 8, 12, 14 and 20 days post-challenge (DPC) (P < 0.05). For growing pigs, the positivity rate of PRRSV in OSs was higher than that in other sample types at 30, 70, and 110 days of age. In sows, 24,718 OSs and 6259 serum samples were collected, with PRRSV-positive rate in OSs (9.4%) being significantly higher than in serum (4.1%) (P < 0.05). However, the Ct values of PRRSV RNA in serum were significantly lower than those in OSs (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe OSs sample type yielded higher PRRSV-positive rates for longer periods compared to NSs, RSs, OFs and serum samples for PRRSV detection in infected pigs. Therefore, OSs has a good potential to be a convenient, practical, and reliable sample type for implementing mass sampling and testing of PRRSV in large-scale pig farms.
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.