ArticleTransboundary and emerging diseases2024
Improved African Swine Fever Detection for Environmental Samples in the Presence of Organic Contaminants.
Article in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Methods for detecting highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus in dairy processing environments.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- The effect of freeze-thaw and storage on African swine fever virus detection in environmental samples.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Comparison of DNA extraction methods for detecting African swine fever virus in feed and environmental samples.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Comparison of digital PCR and real time PCR methods for quantitative analysis of African Swine Fever Virus.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Development of a novel p72 gene-based loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for the rapid detection of African swine fever virus in animal feed.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
Geographical expansion and trans-continental transmission of the African swine fever virus (ASFV) pose a significant risk to the global swine industry due to its high impact on swine health and agro-economy. Several different modes of ASFV transmission make it difficult to predict and prevent ASFV introduction to the free area and its spread in the affected area. Indirect transmission through contaminated surfaces could be one of the possible routes to introduce ASFV to the United States due to its high resistance on environmental surfaces and the frequency of international movements. However, there is limited knowledge about environmental samples for ASFV surveillance, when compared to clinical samples from infected pigs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop methods for better detection of ASFV DNA in the presence of four different types of organic contaminants: soil, swine feces, feed dust, and their mixture. The presence of organic contaminants negatively affected the sensitivity of ASFV DNA detection. Centrifugation and filtration were crucial for ASFV detection in environmental samples with soil and mixture, whereas filtration reduced the sensitivity of ASFV DNA detection in samples from clean surfaces and swine feces- and feed dust-contaminated surfaces. Detection of ASFV was significantly improved when sampled by the sponge stick with DNA/RNA shield when compared to the cost-effective sampling strategy, the cotton gauze with phosphate-buffered saline. These findings highlight the effect of organic contaminants and the use of the nucleic acid stabilization buffer on ASFV diagnostic performance and provide important background for ASFV preparedness.
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.