Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41146366›Full record

ArticlePorcine health management2025

Diagnostic performance of ELISA kits and expanded antigen panels for hemagglutination inhibition assays in pig herds enzootically infected with porcine Influenza A viruses.

J Stadler, K Grau, K Lillie-Jaschniski, S Pesch, A Graaf-Rau, T Harder, S Zoels, R Fux, M Ritzmann, M Eddicks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Porcine health management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

J StadlerClinic for Swine at the Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oberschleissheim, Germany. j.stadler@med.vetmed.uni-muenchen.de.
K GrauClinic for Swine at the Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oberschleissheim, Germany.
K Lillie-JaschniskiCEVA Tiergesundheit, Düsseldorf, Germany.
S PeschCEVA Tiergesundheit, Düsseldorf, Germany.
A Graaf-RauInstitute of Diagnostic Virology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Suedufer 10, 17493, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
T HarderInstitute of Diagnostic Virology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Suedufer 10, 17493, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
S ZoelsClinic for Swine at the Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oberschleissheim, Germany.
R FuxDivision of Virology, Institute of Infectious Diseases and Zoonoses, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oberschleissheim, Germany.
M RitzmannClinic for Swine at the Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oberschleissheim, Germany.
M EddicksClinic for Swine at the Centre for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Oberschleissheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA combined approach using both indirect and direct detection methods can improve the diagnostic efficiency of swine Influenza A virus (swIAV) infections. Despite its importance, limited research has been conducted on the diagnostic performance of serological tests commonly used for routine swIAV surveillance. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare different serological assays, including hemagglutination inhibition (HI) tests using antigen panels of different breadth and three commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) to evaluate their suitability as screening tools for identifying herds enzootically infected with swIAV. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the ELISAs were assessed under field conditions, using the HI test as the reference standard.

resultsThe HI test panel expanded with various swIAV pandemic strains of regional provenience (HI 3) demonstrated the highest sensitivity (97.77%), while the HI panel including only the four major swIAV subtypes (HI 1) showed the lowest sensitivity (93.74%) and negative predictive value (40.00% compared to HI 4 (incorporating all tested strains)). The level of agreement between the HIs and ELISA tests varied considerably, with the indirect ELISA exhibiting the highest concordance with HI assays. Among the ELISA assays, the indirect ELISA (ELISA 1) achieved the highest sensitivity (95.69%) and overall accuracy (94.26%), albeit with lower specificity (60.00%) when compared with the HI including all strains (HI 4). In contrast, the competitive ELISA (ELISA 2) and the blocking ELISA (ELISA 3) showed lower sensitivity (81.36% and 82.89%) but higher specificity (83.33% and 76.67%, respectively).

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the value of combining different diagnostic tools to improve swIAV surveillance in enzootically infected herds. The indirect ELISA offered high sensitivity and was well suited for broad herd-level screening, while ELISAs based on competitive or blocking formats and HI assays offered higher specificity for confirmatory testing. Among all evaluated methods, the HI assay including locally circulating strains demonstrated the best overall performance and proved useful in detecting additional subtype-level information not identified by PCR. The integration of these approaches enhanced diagnostic precision and supported more effective surveillance strategies, albeit at the cost of increased resource demands.

Indexed as

HIInfluenza A virusNP-ELISASerological methodsSerum samplesSurveillanceSwine

Identifiers

PMID41146366
PMCPMC12557959

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.