ArticleJournal of veterinary research2025
Evaluation of the utility of testicular-only processing fluid for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus diagnostics and the effect of sample pooling on the test results.
Article in Journal of veterinary research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The testicular-only processing fluid (TOPF) obtained from piglet testicles after castration could be an alternative sample for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) laboratory diagnosis. If this matrix were proved useful, testing it would spare piglets the stress of blood drawing and eliminate some labour required to take blood samples. The aim of the study was to evaluate the utility of TOPF for this diagnostic purpose. Material and Methods: Serum-and-TOPF pairs from male piglets and sera from female piglets were tested using commercial ELISA and real-time RT-PCR kits. For the pooling simulation, 10 μL aliquots of TOPF separated into low-, moderately and highly positive were mixed with appropriate volumes of negative TOPF samples. This simulated pools of 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 samples containing 1 positive for serological analyses and pools of 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 and 320 samples containing 1 positive in molecular analyses. Results: The percentages of anti-porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) antibodies were statistically significantly different (P-value < 0.05) between boar sera (69.55%) and TOPF (54.49%), as well as between gilt sera (74.52%) and TOPF. However, after adjusting the cut-off value, no significant differences were noted. The RNA of PRRSV was detected in 21.26% of male sera, 15.23% of TOPFs and 17.00% of female sera. Pooled sample testing revealed discrepancies in positive results associated with the pool size and original sample positivity strength. Conclusion: TOPF samples can be a valuable matrix for laboratory PRRS diagnosis in piglets. However, it is important to be aware of the potential for false-negative results.
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.