Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39611115›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Comparison of tonsil-oral-scrubbing with serum, oral fluid, and tonsil scraping to detect PRRSV RNA in sows over time following live virus inoculation.

Peng Li, Thomas Petznick, Emily Pratt, Guilherme Cezar, Kelly Will, Mafalda Mil-Homens, Hao Tong, Isadora Machado, Daniel C A Moraes, Rodrigo C Paiva and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Peng LiCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Thomas PetznickArkCare, Omaha, NE, United States.
Emily PrattArkCare, Omaha, NE, United States.
Guilherme CezarCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Kelly WillCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Mafalda Mil-HomensCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Hao TongCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Isadora MachadoCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Daniel C A MoraesCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Rodrigo C PaivaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Alexis BerteCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Onyekachukwu H OsemekeCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Paul YeskeSwine Vet Center, Saint Peter, MN, United States.
Gustavo S SilvaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Daniel C L LinharesCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Current common sample types for sows, such as serum and tonsil scraping, require snaring the animals, which can be labor-intensive and raise concerns regarding animal welfare. Obtaining oral fluids (OF) from individual sows in field conditions presents challenges, as not all sows readily respond to the rope method. The Tonsil-Oral-Scrubbing (TOSc) collector allows for the rapid retrieval of fluids from the sow's oral and tonsillar areas without the need for snaring. Previous studies have reported comparable detection rates of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) RNA between TOSc and tonsil scraping, with significantly higher positivity observed in TOSc compared to serum in acutely infected sows. Methods: Given that PRRSV RNA detection rates can vary among different sample types and fluctuate over time, this field study aimed to compare PRRSV real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-rtPCR) positivity and cycle threshold (Ct) values between TOSc, serum, OF, and tonsil scraping at three time points following live-virus inoculation (LVI) in sows. This study was conducted within a breeding herd attempting to eliminate PRRSV following an outbreak. Four sample types were collected from each of the 61 conveniently selected sows at 30, 60, and 90 days post-LVI in the order of OF, TOSc, tonsil scraping, and serum, and subsequently tested for PRRSV RNA. Results: The results indicated that TOSc and tonsil scraping exhibited decreased PRRSV RNA detection rates over time, whereas the detection rates for OF and serum remained relatively stable. Moreover, the median Ct values for TOSc and tonsil scraping were numerically lower than those for OF and serum at all sampling points. Specifically, tonsil scraping demonstrated significantly higher PRRSV RNA positivity than the other three sample types. TOSc also exhibited significantly higher PRRSV RNA positivity than OF and serum at both 30 and 60 days post-LVI. By 90 days post-LVI, there was a significant difference in the PRRSV RNA detection rates between TOSc and tonsil scraping. However, no significant difference was observed between TOSc and OF or between TOSc and serum. According to the RT-rtPCR results, most PRRSV RNA-positive sows detected via TOSc and tonsil scraping turned negative by 90 days post-LVI, although a small proportion remained positive. Conversely, a small number of previously negative sows tested positive at 60 and 90 days post-LVI, indicating an intermittent mode of PRRSV RNA detection for both sample types.

Indexed as

detectionoral fluidPRRSVserumsowsurveillancetonsil scrapingTOSC

Identifiers

PMID39611115
PMCPMC11603956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.