ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Optimizing Swine Oral Fluid Sampling Procedures for Growing Pigs in Commercial Settings.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral Fluid Sampling in Group-Housed Sows: Field Observations.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Swine Practitioner Practices on Oral Fluid Sampling in U.S. Swine Farms: A Nationwide Survey.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Use of Saliva Analytes as a Predictive Model to Detect Diseases in the Pig: A Pilot Study.Metabolites · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Pen-based oral fluids are used extensively for surveillance and disease detection in swine, but there is sparse information on the sampling process itself. To address this shortcoming, we documented the pen-based oral fluid sampling process with the aim of optimizing the number of pigs in a pen that contributed to the sample. We quantified the effects of (1) previous experience with rope sampling (training), (2) the number of ropes suspended in the pen, and (3) sampling time on pig participation and pig-rope contact. A subset of pigs was clearly marked for individual identification and their interactions with ropes video recorded. Thereafter, pig-rope contacts were counted from the recordings, with "contact" defined as an individually identified pig clearly taking the rope into its mouth. Data were analyzed using appropriate models (R version 4.4.1 R core team 2024). Training, provision of additional ropes, and extended sampling time all increased pig participation across pen sizes. However, for routine oral fluid collection in the field, we recommend training pigs prior to hanging ropes for sample collection and increasing sampling time to maximize the pigs' contribution to the oral fluid sample. Importantly, these studies focused on pig behavior and not detection; thus, future studies should evaluate the impact of these same factors on the probability of detection.
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.