Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40496920›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Evaluating stillborn and litter size as indicators of PRRSV detection in live piglets and the use of stillborn tongue fluids as risk-based samples for PRRSV monitoring.

Isadora F Machado, Peng Li, Jinnan Xiao, Thomas Petznick, Ana Paula P Silva, Onyekachukwu H Osemeke, Lucina Galina Pantoja, Phillip Gauger, Giovani Trevisan, Gustavo S Silva and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Isadora F MachadoDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Peng LiDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Jinnan XiaoDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Thomas PetznickDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Ana Paula P SilvaDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Onyekachukwu H OsemekeDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Lucina Galina PantojaGenus plc PIC, Hendersonville, TN, United States.
Phillip GaugerDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Giovani TrevisanDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Gustavo S SilvaDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Daniel C L LinharesDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: A risk-based approach to animal selection for sampling enhances pathogen detection by increasing the probability of selecting an animal harboring the pathogen while requiring a smaller sample size. Postmortem tongue fluids (TF) have emerged as a promising risk-based approach, with a PRRSV RNA positivity rate similar to serum, processing fluids, and family oral fluids. Thus, this study assessed the effect of stillborn presence, litter size, and PRRSV RNA detection by RT-qPCR in stillborn TF on the probability of having viremic piglets within the litter. Methods: Samples from 130 litters were collected within 12 hours after farrowing from two breeding herds. TF and intracardiac blood were collected from stillborns, and tail blood swabs were collected from liveborn littermates within the selected litters. Samples were individually tested for PRRSV RNA detection by RT-qPCR. Litters with ≤ 11 liveborn piglets were defined as small. Generalized linear regression models were used to evaluate the litter size, presence of stillborns, and stillborn PRRSV results on the probability that a litter or at least one liveborn littermate would test PRRSV-positive. Results: The live piglets' mean positivity within the litter was 5.0%, while the total born was 4.6%. Litters with at least one stillborn had 12.5 times higher odds of having a PRRSV-positive result, and 4.8 times higher odds of having at least one viremic liveborn piglet. In small litters, the odds of having a PRRSV-positive result increased 12.2 times, whereas the odds of having a viremic liveborn littermate increased 10.8 times. When the stillborn TF was positive, the odds of having a viremic liveborn littermate increased 17.6 times. Discussion: In conclusion, stillborn TFs were a reliable indicator of PRRSV status among litters. Liveborn piglets from litters with PRRSV-positive stillborn TF or small litters had greater odds of testing PRRSV-positive. Therefore, stillborn TF collection and targeting small litters improve PRRSV detection and support farrowing room biocontainment strategies.

Indexed as

monitoringPRRSVrisk-basedswinetargeted samplingtongue fluids

Identifiers

PMID40496920
PMCPMC12150799

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.