ArticleVeterinary sciences2025
Environmental and Serological Monitoring of Porcine Circovirus by Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification in Pig Farms.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preparation of Monoclonal Antibodies Against Porcine Circovirus Type 2 Capsid Protein and Development of a Blocking ELISA for Detection of the Antibody Against the Virus.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- A Novel Voltammetric Point-of-Care Device for Rapid and Accurate Nucleic Acid and Viral Pathogen Detection.ACS omega · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Despite the widespread use of Porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) vaccination, subclinical infection persists and remains a concern due to its economic impact. Therefore, continuous herd-level monitoring is essential to assess the dynamics of this infection on farms and minimize its impact. This study evaluated the applicability of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for PCV2 detection in serum, air, and surface samples collected under field conditions. In addition, a simplified Direct LAMP protocol, omitting DNA extraction, was compared with quantitative PCR (qPCR) as the reference method. A total of 360 samples from PCV2 vaccinated and unvaccinated fattening farms were analyzed. Diagnostic performance was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and concordance with qPCR, using Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ). LAMP showed higher agreement with qPCR (κ = 0.52) than Direct LAMP (κ = 0.16). Serum samples provided the most reliable results when DNA extraction was performed, reaching substantial agreement with qPCR (κ = 0.76). However, Direct LAMP applied directly to serum was negatively affected by inhibitory substances, resulting in a significant drop in sensitivity. In contrast both air and surface samples yielded comparable results between LAMP and Direct LAMP, without the need for DNA extraction. Notably, LAMP-based assays detected PCV2 circulation earlier than qPCR, particularly in environmental samples. These findings demonstrate the potential of LAMP as a practical alternative to qPCR for PCV2 monitoring. While DNA extraction remains essential for reliable detection in serum, Direct LAMP represents a promising strategy for environmental surveillance, enabling rapid, low-cost, and on-farm diagnostics.
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.