ArticleViruses2025
Comparison of Nose Wipes, Stall Sponges, and Air Samples with Nasal Secretions for the Molecular Detection of Equine Influenza Virus in Clinically and Subclinically Infected Horses.
Article in Viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, the use of non-invasive host and environmental samples for the detection and monitoring of equine respiratory pathogens has shown promise and a high overall agreement with the gold standard of nasal secretions. The present study looked at comparing nose wipes, stall sponges, and air samples with nasal swabs collected from 27 horses involved in an equine influenza (EI) outbreak. The outbreak involved 5 clinical, 6 subclinical, and 16 uninfected horses. Samples sets were collected at the onset of the index case and retested every 2-3 days thereafter until all horses tested qPCR-negative for EI virus (EIV). Nose wipes and stall sponges identified EIV in all clinical cases, and air samples identified EIV in 4/5 clinical horses. The overall agreement with all nasal swabs collected from clinical cases was 89% for nose wipes, 78% for stall sponges, and 44% for air samples. Due to the shorter shedding time in subclinical cases, nose wipes and stall sponges detected EIV in 5/6 and 4/6 subclinical horses, respectively. Only one single air sample tested qPCR-positive for EIV in a subclinical shedder. When compared to the gold standard of nasal secretions in subclinically infected horses, the overall agreement was 54% for stall sponges, 50% for air samples, and 45% for nose wipes. The collection of non-invasive contact and environmental samples is a promising alternative to nasal swabs for the detection of EIV in clinically and subclinically infected horses. However, they should always be considered as a second-choice sample type to the more accurate nasal swabs and used to test refractory horses or large populations during outbreaks. Further, the pooling of identical or different samples collected from the same horse for the qPCR testing of EIV increases the accuracy of detecting EIV, especially in subclinically infected horses.
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.