Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39770357›Full record

ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Optimizing Swine Oral Fluid Sampling Procedures for Growing Pigs in Commercial Settings.

Grzegorz Tarasiuk, Marta D Remmenga, Kathleen C O'Hara, Marian K Talbert, Sarah Mielke, Marisa L Rotolo, Pam Zaabel, Danyang Zhang, Jeffrey J Zimmerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

9 authors.

Grzegorz TarasiukDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-7253-8372
Marta D RemmengaUSDA: VS: Strategy and Policy, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-6518-7068
Kathleen C O'HaraUSDA: VS: Strategy and Policy, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.
Marian K TalbertUSDA: VS: Strategy and Policy, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.
Sarah MielkeUSDA: VS: Strategy and Policy, Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0547-2221
Marisa L RotoloNational Pork Board, Des Moines, IA 50325, USA.
Pam ZaabelNational Pork Board, Des Moines, IA 50325, USA.
Danyang ZhangDepartment of Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010, USA.
Jeffrey J ZimmermanDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8107-2422

Funding

United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AP21VSSP0000C056 and AP22VSSP0000C047
6 · The paper itself

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

SalivaSpecimen HandlingAnimal HusbandryAnimalsSwineSwine Diseasesbehaviororal fluidspen sizesamplingsurveillanceswine

Identifiers

PMID39770357
PMCPMC11728740

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.